7n  /&(  BB*Kt> 

LIBRARY 


FRED'  K  DIE  HI. 


\ 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/congressionalcomOOmccorich 


LIBRARY  OF 
ECONOMICS  AND  POLITICS 

EDITED  BY 
RICHARD  T.   ELY,  Ph.D.,  LL.D. 


Hibrarg  of  Economics  antr  flJolftfcs* 


Independent  Treasury  System  of  the  United  States. 

By  DAVID  KINLEY,  A.B.     l2mo $1.50 

Repudiation  of  State   Debts  in  the  United  States. 

By  WILLIAM  A.   SCOTT,   Ph.D.     l2mo 1.50 

Socialism  and  Social   Reform. 

By  RICHARD  T.   ELY,   Ph.D.,   LL.D.     l2mo 1.50 

American  Charities. 

By  AMOS  G.   WARNER,   Ph.D.,  Professor  of  Economics 

in  the  Leland   Stanford,  Jr.,   University.     l2mo 1.75 

Hull-House  Maps  and  Papers.     A  Presentation  of 

Nationalities  and   Wages  in  a  Congested  District  of  Chi- 
cago.    With   Maps.     8vo 2.50 

Special  Edition,  with   Maps  mounted  on  Linen.     8vo.     .       3.50 

Punishment  and   Reformation. 

By  F.   H.  WINES,    LL.D.     l2mo 1.75 

Social  Theory.     A  Grouping  of   Social    Facts  and 

Principles.      By    JOHN     BASCOM,    Professor   of    Political 
Economy  in  Williams  College.     l2mo 1.75 

Proportional  Representation. 

By  JOHN   R.  COMMONS,    Professor  of  Sociology  in  Syra- 
cuse University.     l2mo 1.75 

State  Railroad   Control. 

By  FRANK  H.   DIXON,   Ph.D.     l2mo 1.75 

Southern  Side   Lights. 

By  EDWARD   INGLE,  A.B.     l2mo.     Cloth 1.75 

Taxation  and  Taxes  in   the    United    States    Under 

the  Internal   Revenue  System.     By  FREDERIC  C.  HOWE, 

A.M.,  Ph.D.     l2mo 1.75 

An  Essay  on  the  Present   Distribution   of  Wealth 

in  the  United  States.      By  CHARLES  B.  SPAHR,  Ph.D. 

l2mo 1.50 

Southern  Statesmen  of  the  Old  Regime. 

By  WM.  P.  TRENT,  A.M.    l2mo.     Giit  top,  with  portraits.       2.00 

Workingmen's  Insurance. 

By  W.   F.  WILLOUGHBY,  Department  of  Labor,  Wash- 
ington,  D.C.     l2mo 1.75 

Congressional  Committees. 

By  LAUROS  G.  McCONACHIE,  A.M.     l2mo 1.75 

Municipal   Monopolies. 

Edited  by  PROF.   E.  W.  BEMIS.     !2mo 1.75 


Congressional  Committees 


A  STUDY 

OF 

THE  ORIGINS  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  OUR  NATIONAL 
AND  LOCAL  LEGISLATIVE  METHODS 


LAUROS  G.iMcCONACHIE,  Ph.D. 


NEW  YORK :  46  East  i4th  Street 

THOMAS  Y.  CROWELL  &  COMPANY 

BOSTON  :  100  Purchase  Street 


REPLACING 


i 


Copyright,  1898, 
By  Thomas  Y.  Ckowell  &  Compakt. 


C.  J.  Peters  «fe  Son,  Typographers, 
Boston. 


TK  lozf 


TO 

My  Father  and  Mothik. 


515 


PREFACE. 


America,  to  paraphrase  Emerson,  is  but  another 
name  for  evolution.     Legislative  bodies  are  living, 

more  or  less  rapidly  changing,  political  organisms. 
Bach  has  its  own  external  and  internal  conditions. 

In  many  respects  the  laws  of  their  being  are  like 
those  of  human  society  in  general.  They  must  have 
governments.    They  must  adapt  themselves  to  their 

own  peculiar  external  environments.  Within,  jus- 
tice is  to  be  maintained  between  member  and  mem- 
ber, between  the  ruler  and  the  ruled;  positive  and 
energetic  administration  is  to  have  its  efficient  or- 
gans; rules  and  customs  are  to  he  established  by 
the  rightful  voice  of  ail  concerned  ;  and  everything 
ought  to  be  adjusted  to  the  complexity  or  simpli- 
city of  the  bodies  as  regards  the  number  of  mem- 
bers, variety  or  sameness  of  individual  capacities, 
amount  and  character  of  the  work  to  be  per- 
formed. 

Parliamentary  law  is  the  law  of  law-making. 
The  curtain  of  our  legislation  rises  with  an  af- 
firmative clashing  of  spears  in  the  folk-moot  of  a 

vii 


VI 11  PREFACE. 

Teuton  forest ;  it  falls,  thus  far,  with  the  counting 
of  a  quorum  in  a  marble  palace  by  the  Potomac. 
Not  to  speak  of  other  races,  ancient  and  modern, 
progress  of  Germanic  civilization  can  be  satisfac- 
torily traced  in  the  law  of  public  meetings  and 
assemblies. 

In  our  earlier  history  almost  the  only  men  who 
gave  any  attention  to  legislative  methods  were 
the  practical  law-makers  and  politicians.  A  new 
school  of  outside  critics  may  be  said  to  have  begun 
with  Horace  Greeley,  and  to  have  been  continued 
under  the  lead  of  such  scholars  and  authors  as 
James  Parton,  Alexander  Johnson,  Woodrow  Wil- 
son, and  James  Bryce.  These  men  were  attracted 
by  the  crashing  of  parliamentary  machinery  upon 
the  floor  of  Congress,  that  complete  break-down 
due  to  a  sudden  and  vast  augmentation  of  legisla- 
tive burdens  brought  by  the  War  for  the  Union  and 
its  results.  They  were  rightly  unanimous  in  tak- 
ing their  stand  as  scathing,  relentless  fault-finders, 
but  failed  to  suggest  remedies,  or  to  discover  any 
process  of  self-correction  in  Congress  itself.  They 
had,  to  be  sure,  one  stock  model  to  offer,  the  Brit- 
ish parliamentary  system.  Their  example,  as  well 
as  the  new  zeal  for  comparative  study  of  institu- 
tions, has  led  publicists  to  look  abroad  for  meth- 
ods of  improvement,  and  to  hold  up  many  foreign 
forms  as  worthy  of  importation.  But,  by  way  of 
reaction,  a  second  and  a  later  school  has  arisen  in 


PREFACE.  ix 

opposition  to  the  first,  the  defenders  of  American 
Legislative  methods  as  developments  of  American 
political  conditions,  some  of  them  men  of  letters, 
but  more  largely  scholar-legislators,  with  years  of 
experience  in  Congress. 

Between  these  masters  of  attack  and  defence 
I  have  sought  the  golden  mean.  But  there  is 
another  source,  the  best  reliance  of  the  seeker 
after  truth.  As  Montesquieu  somewhere  expresses 
it,  laws  interpret  history,  history  interprets  laws. 
With  the  value  in  mind  o!  applying  such  a  prin- 
ciple to  the  study  of  the  rules  and  practice,  I 
have  tried  to  glean   from  contemporary  debates, 

memoirs,  QewspaperB,  and  other  records  the  rea- 
sons assigned  by  the  author  for  each  innovation  as 
it    has  entered   and  enlarged    tin-   codes,  as  well  as 

the  testimony  of  contemporary  legislators  upon  the 

conditions  prevailing  in  successive  stages  of  the 
history  of  our  national  House  and  Senate.  Some 
weeks  were  given  to  attendance  upon  the  daily  ses- 
sions of  Congress.  I  have  breathed  the  unselfish 
devotion  to  learning,  and  the  loyalty  to  scientific 
methods  of  research,  which  is  in  the  atmosphere 
of  our  American  universities.  On  these  accounts, 
I  trust  that  the  following  pages  have  been  made 
to  carry  some  well-founded  and  useful  contribu- 
tions to  knowledge,  though  faults  be  many,  and, 
to  others,  patent. 

A  few  words  concerning  the  foot-notes.     Dates 


X  PREFACE. 

are  given  numerously  for  two  reasons :  they  are 
helpful  to  simultaneous  consultation  of  the  de- 
bates, the  journals,  and  other  sources  with  refer- 
ence to  any  particular  incident ;  and  they  are 
especially  important  to  a  progressive  view.  The 
initials,  H.  J.,  S.  J.,  C.  A.,  C.  D.,  C.  G.,  and  C. 
R.  refer  to  the  House  and  Senate  Journals,  and  to 
the  Annals,  Debates,  Globes,  and  Records,  of  Con- 
gress respectively.  Thus,  49 :  2,  S.  J.,  91,  Dec. 
20,  1886,  means  the  second  session  of  the  Forty- 
ninth  Congress,  Senate  Journal,  page  ninety-one ; 
and  by  aid  of  the  date  the  corresponding  account 
is  readily  found,  49 :  2,  C.  R.,  272. 

In  the  preparation  of  this  work  I  have  been 
under  obligation  for  advice  and  encouragement  to 
Drs.  Jeremiah  W.  Jenks  and  Richard  T.  Ely;  for 
courtesies  in  the  hurry  of  legislative  life  to  the 
Hons.  George  W.  Ray,  Everett  J.  Murphy,  and 
George  W.  Prince  ;  for  untiring  helpfulness,  to 
the  library  staffs  of  Cornell  University  and  the 
Wisconsin  Historical  Society. 

L.  G.  M. 
Chicago,  Jan.  18, 1898. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I. 

Origins  and  Antecedents. 

PAOI 

Earliest  Content  of  the  Committee  Idea 3 

Beginnings  in  the  British  Parliament 0 

America's  Parliamentary  Debt  to  England 9 

Original  Feature!  boa  Colonial  Life 12 

The  Cougresses  of  the  Revolution  ami  the  Confederation       .  2G 

Summary  as  to  Origins  and  Antecedents 30 

THE   HOUSE  OP  REPRESENTATIVES. 

CHAPTKi:    II. 

The  Public  and  the  Committee. 

Development  of  Rules  in  the  House 

The  Committee  as  a  Mirror  of  History 39 

Its  Territorial  Basis 44 

Sectional  Considerations is 

Majority  and  Minority  Representation 53 

The  Speaker  as  the  Appointing  Power M 

Secrecy  vs.  Publicity  of  Proceedings 5<i 

Suggested  Lines  of  Future  Development 07 

CHAPTER  III. 

The  Committee  and  Private  Interests. 

Conflict  between  Public  and  Private  Business 72 

Failures  in  Private  Legislation 73 

Witnesses  before  Committees 79 

Review  of  Relations  between  People  and  Committee    ...  84 

xi 


Xll  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IV. 
The  Control  by  the  House. 

PAGE 

The  Committee  and  the  Constitution 87 

Adaptation  of  Procedure  to  Environment 88 

Sketch  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 92 

Its  Merits  and  Demerits 95 

Its  Evolving  Functions 96 

History  of  Debate  in  the  House 101 

Changes  in  the  Methods  of  Control  —  Reference  and  Selection,  115 

CHAPTER  V. 

Select  and  Standing  Committees. 

Law  of  Their  Development 123 

The  Process  of  Increase 124 

Manner  of  Appointment 126 

Division  and  Subdivision 131 

Length  of  Their  Existence 137 

Their  Merits  and  Demerits 142 

Differences  between  the  Two  Classes 147 

CHAPTER  VI. 

Equality  and  Leadership. 

Forces  making  for  Equality  and  Inequality 151 

The  Insignificant  Committeeman 152 

Evolution  of  Leaders 154 

Declining  Equality  among  Committees —  the  Morning  Hour,  167 

Rise  of  Certain  Committees  to  Superiority 171 

The  Right  to  Report  at  any  Time 173 

Development  of  the  Finance  Committee  and  Influence  of 

Riders 175 

The  Struggle  for  Distribution  of  Appropriation  Bills    ...  181 

History  of  Suspension  of  the  Rules,  and  Special  Orders    .     .  186 

Survey  of  the  Situation  in  1880 189 

Rise  of  the  Committee  on  Rules 191 

Its  Acquirement   of  Exclusive  Jurisdiction   over  Special 

Orders 195 

Analysis  of  Its  Part  in  the  Legislative  System 200 

Conclusions  as  to  the  House 207 


CONTENTS.  Xlll 

CHAPTER  VII. 
Bonds  between  Judiciary,  Executive,  and  Congress. 

PAGE 

The  Bearing  of  Constitutional  Divisions 211 

The  Committee  on  the  Judiciary 212 

Committees  and  Presidential  Messages 214 

Influence  of  the  Executive  upon  Committee  Work  ....  221 

Select  Investigating  Committees 228 

The  Standing  Committees  on  Expenditures 233 

Ordinary  Relations  between  Committee  and  Cabinet     .     .     .  236 

e  Development  of  Joint  Action  with  the  Senate  .     .     .  239 

Standing  and  Select  Joint  Committees 240 

Conferences 945 

Ordinary  Relations  by  Use  of  Similar  Committees    ....  262 

Summary  as  to  Relations  between  the  Departments      .    .    .  264 

THE   SENATE. 

CHAPTER  VIII. 

Antecedents  and  Outward  Relations. 

House  and  Senate  —  Value  of  a  Comparative  Study      .     .     .  259 

The  Senate  Stands  for  tin-  Peel 980 

Supremacy  of  the  South  and  the  West 261 

The  Senate  and  Public  Opinion 264 

State  Representation  upon  Committees 206 

Seniority  and  Sectionalism 210 

liif   Party  Composition   of  Committees  as  Determined  by 

Ballot 272 

Party  Representation  under  Later  Methods 275 

Practical  Workings  and  Defects  of  the  Ballot 277 

Early  Influence!  for  its  Undermining 278 

Origin  of  the  Caucus  Method  for  Choice  of  Committees  .  .  280 
Struggle  of  the  Republicans  for  Committee  Representation 

before  the  Civil  War 284 

Party  Ratios  since  1861 287 

A  Recent  Reorganization  Described 290 

Present  Distortion  of  the  Committee  System 292 

The  Senate  and  Private  Bill  Legislation 296 


XIV  CONTENTS. 

CHAPTER  IX. 
Interior  Organization. 

PAGE 

The  Absence  of  Parliamentary  Development 300 

Failure  of  the  Previous  Question 303 

Reasons  for  the  Unwillingness  to  Organize  more  Thoroughly,  304 

The  Strength  of  Individuals  and  Minorities 306 

The  Minority  vs.  the  Committee       309 

Forces  on  the  Side  of  Parliamentary  Progress 311 

Advance  in  Methods  prior  to  1870     .     . 316 

The  Making  of  the  Calendar 318 

Finance  and  General  Legislation 321 

Continuity  and  Stability 323 

Senatorial  Seniority 325 

Leaders  —  the  Committee  Chairman 326 

The  Vice-President  presiding 326 

The  Vice-President  naming  the  Committees 329 

History  of  the  Presidency  pro  tempore 332 

The  President  pro  tempore  naming  the  Committees      .     .     .  333 

Comparison  of  the  two  Constitutional  Dignitaries     ....  336 

Caucus  Premiers 338 

The  Committee  on  Committees,  and  the  Steering  Committee,  341 

Conclusions  as  to  the  Senate 343 

APPENDIX. 

I.   Origin  and  Development  of  Standing  Committees   .     .  349 

II.   Classification  of  Committees 359 

III.  Rules  proposed  for  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  and 

adopted  in  1703 362 

IV.  Committees  in  State  Legislatures  and  Municipal  Coun- 

cils   365 

V.   The  Financial  Committees  of  Congress    ......  373 

VI.   Rules  of  the  House  of  Representatives 388 

VII.  List  of  Works  cited   . 420 

Index 427 


CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEES. 


In  societies,  as  in  living  bodies,  increase  of  mass  is  habitually 
accompanied  by  increase  of  structure. 

Herbert  Spencer. 


And  thereupon  they  came  near,  in  a  great  Multitude  (more 
than  was  ever  seen  on  the  First  Day  of  a  Parliament  in  any  man's 
memory)  and  answered  to  their  Names. 

"Journal  of  the  House  of  Commons." 
10  Martii,  A.  1603. 


The  Speaker  reads  to  the  House  the  orderly  Method  of  Parlia- 
ments, and  the  Demeanour  of  the  Members  thereof  observed  in 
England,  which  he  recommended  to  them,  as  civil  and  good:  as 
also  the  Method  observed  by  the  English  in  Committees. 

"Votes  of  the  Assembly."    (Pennsylvania.) 
1st.  mo.,  12th  da.,  1683. 


CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES 


CHAPTER   I. 

ORIGINS    AND    ANTECEDENTS. 

Society  is  everywhere  using  committees.  Their 
importance  in  the  many  lines  of  public  and  pri- 
vate co-operation  is  on  the  increase.  Here  a  fash- 
ionable city  club  chooses  certain  of  its  members  to 
arrange  for  some  brilliant  reception;  there  a  busy 
board  of  trade  requires  a  select  few  of  its  body  to 
report  upon  an  Important  commercial  undertaking. 
The  Christian  Endeavorers  find  remarkable  utility 
in  the  committee  idea.  So  does  Tammany  Hall. 
Alike  to  the  primary  and  to  the  governing  council 
in  a  rural  American  village,  to  the  German  Reichs- 
tag and  to  the  active  municipality  of  Berlin,  the 
device  is  indispensable.  Not  less  striking  than  the 
number  is  the  variety,  —  committees  of  all  shades 
in  character,  organization,  and  object.  An  institu- 
tion becoming  daily  more  common  and  necessary- 
may  well  receive  more  of  the  publicist's  thought. 
What  is  its  significance  ?  Why  does  the  British 
House  of  Commons  present  one  elaborate  commits 

3 


4  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

tee  system,  and  the  French  Chamber  of  Deputies 
another,  essentially  different? 

Application  of  these  and  of  other  questions  to 
the  committees  of  our  Congress  leads  ultimately 
to  the  deepest  principles  of  political  and  social 
science.  Since  its  entrance  into  English  etymol- 
ogy, about  the  time  of  the  Norman  Conquest,  the 
term  committee  has  had  half  a  dozen  applications, 
special  and  general,  three  of  which  are  now  obso- 
lete.1 As  used  by  the  British  Parliament,  it  has 
designated  a  group,  the  session  of  a  group,  or  an 
individual  member.  With  the  latter,  which  was 
its  earliest  sense,  the  collective  body  reported  as 
"your  committees."  Survivals  of  this  old  defini- 
tion remain  in  American  legislative  codes  to  this 
day.2  The  gradual  change  to  the  present  aggre- 
gate meaning  has  its  hidden  contrast  between  the 
ages  of  individualism  and  our  era  of  socialistic 
trend.  In  its  underlying  ideas  the  word  implies 
that  something  is  committed  by  a  committent. 
Here  its  sphere  coincides  with  that  of  the  more 
familiar  political  term,  representative.  According 
to  a  stern  rule  re-enacted  by  the  ancient  British 
Commons  at  each  session,  the  door  of  the  Speaker's 
Chamber,  in  which  committees  must  meet,  was 
carefully  fastened,  and  the  key  even  locked  away 

1  Murray's  New  English  Dictionary. 

2  Cf.  controversy  of  Garfield  and  Bayne  over  the  employment 
of  "it"  or  "they"  in  speaking  of  a  committee,  42:  2,  C.  R.,  609, 
Jan.  29,  1880.     (For  explanation  of  abbreviations,  see  Preface.) 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  5 

by  another  key  during  the  sittings  of  the  larger 
general  assembly.  It  was  the  close  rein  put  upon 
delegated  authority.  Though  we  read  in  scholarly 
works  little  of  committee  rule,  and  that  mainly  de- 
nunciatory, there  are  able  historical  and  philosoph- 
ical exploitations  of  representative  government. 
Time  has  differentiated  the  meanings  of  the  words 
committee  and  representative,  but  follow  them  back 
towards  their  beginnings  and  they  approach  iden- 
tity. This  may  be  demonstrated  wit  lion  t  crossing 
the  Atlantic,  as,  also,  by  the  same  examples,  the 
earlier  use  in  America  of  the  term  committee  in 
the  individual  sense.  Old  records  declare  that 
at  a  General  Court  of  New  Plymouth  Colony, 
June  4,  1639,  were  present  the  "  Committees  or 
Depties  for  eich  Towne ; "  and  that,  in  the  pious 
conventicle  of  the  New  Haven  bam  (1638), 
with  the  Bible  newly  adopted  as  their  constitu- 
tion, the  fathers  of  Connecticut,  when  one  of  their 
number  "stuck  that  free  planters  ought  not  to 
give  the  power  out  of  their  hands,"  reasoned  with 
this  extreme  Jeffersonian  antetype,  showing  how 
"in  all  places  they  chuse  committys."  All  the 
freemen  of  Maryland,  in  1637,  elected  from  ten 
candidates  five  "  committees,"  who  were  soon  suc- 
ceeded by  three  men ;  and  these  groups  constituted 
the  real  legislature,  since  their  bills  were  passed 
by  what  was  practically  mere  referendum.1      In 

1  Archives  of  Maryland,  Proceedings  and  Acts  of  the  Assembly, 
1637-8-1664,  pp.  10-24. 


6  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

1774  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  styled 
the  Continental  Congress  "  a  meeting  of  commit- 
tees from  the  several  colonies."  An  authority  of 
the  present  day  follows  this  interchanging  of  terms, 
when,  in  the  same  paragraph,  he  speaks  of  the 
board  of  selectmen  as  "  a  committee  from  three  to 
thirteen  in  number,"  and  cites  the  Salem  Records 
as  calling  it  the  "  town  representative."  *  In  the 
New  World  surroundings  —  or  lack  of  surround- 
ings —  committees  had  rebounded  largely  to  the 
more  primitive  use.  Primal  distinctions  may  de- 
termine that  space  or  distance  was  the  main  obsta- 
cle maternal  to  the  representative,  while  time  or 
the  need  of  despatch  brought  forth  the  committee- 
man; but  at  the  basis  of  both  functions  lies  the 
idea  of  a  trust  imposed.  The  people  to-day  in 
town-meeting  and  in  national  assembly  bestow  the 
power  of  government  alike  upon  both.  In  the  lat- 
ter case  the  legislature  becomes  an  intermediary 
between  people  and  committee,  and  the  party  ma- 
chinery of  conventions  adds  other  middle  stages. 
Congress,  a  miniature  of  the  nation,  is  in  turn  min- 
iatured in  each  of  its  committees. 

Wherever  men  have  begun  to  use  political  rep- 
resentation, advantages  similiar  to  those  which 
recommended  it  to  democracy  have  soon  led  the 
assembled  representatives  a  logical  step  farther  to 

1  Howard's  "Local  Constitutional  History  of  the  United 
States,"  75. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  1 

commitment.  The  great  first  type  of  modern  legis- 
latures is  the  British  House  of  Commons.  In  its 
earliest  written  records  are  entries  of  the  appoint- 
ment of  committees.  In  1340  there  were  joint 
committees  of  Lords  and  Commons  to  draw  up 
the  statutes.1  Beginning  with  petty  clerical  tasks, 
they  gradually  took  on  new  and  higher  duties.2 
Small  at  first,  their  size  increased.  At  first  funo- 
tus  officio  upon  report  concerning  a  single  matter 
assigned,  the  lives  of  some  of  them  naturally  be- 
gan to  lengthen  by  commitment  of  more  than  one 
case,  where  cases  were  similar  to  the  same  group 
of  members.  Thus,  in  Queen  Elizabeth's  reign, 
finally  developed  the  first  standing  committee,  a 
Committee  of  Privileges  and  Elections  lasting 
throughout  the  session.8  But  the  critical  and  the 
glorious  period  came  in  those  famous  days  when 
divine  right  of  kings  struggled  most  stubbornly 
against  divine  right  of  people.  Then  it  was  that 
increasing  membership  and  increasing  business 
forced  upon  the  House  new  and  deeper  division  of 
its  labor.  In  the  reign  of  James  I.,  the  Commons 
invented  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  a  parlia- 
mentary machine  which  has  played  its  nobly  sav- 

1  Stubbs's  "  Constitutional  History  of  England,"  III.  466. 

2  The  ancient  French  comis  was  a  clerk;  cf.  the  humble  origin 
of  the  title  count  (comes),  Henderson's  "  Introduction  to  the 
Middle  Ages,"  176,  219;  and  "Mediaeval  Europe,"  496,  497. 

8  J.  F.  Jameson  in  "  Report  of  American  Historical  Associa- 
tion," 1893,  p.  394. 


8  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

ing  and  conservative  part  in  near  three  centuries 
of  Anglo-Saxon  history.  The  tyrannical  Stuart 
stood  ready  to  single  out  and  crush  that  mem- 
ber who  dared  to  speak  freely  to  his  fellows ;  and 
the  officers  of  the  House,  including  the  Speaker, 
an  appointee  of  the  crown,  were  the  king's  tat- 
tling minions.1  Therefore,  in  order  to  protect 
their  precious  right  of  untrammelled  deliberation, 
the  members  began  to  hold  secret  and  informal 
sessions  with  a  chairman  of  their  own  choosing. 
These  so-called  Grand  Committees  met  in  the  af- 
ternoons, when  the  spies  were  gone.  Upon  the 
ancient  rolls  half  a  dozen  words  and  a  dotted  line 
in  place  of  the  spokesman's  name  are  all  that  indi- 
cate the  report  to  the  House  of  their  momentous 
proceedings.  By  an  easy  transition,  the  Commons 
came  to  avail  themselves  of  their  prized  expedient 
in  the  midst  of  the  morning  session.  The  Speaker 
at  first  withdrew  to  an  outer  room,  but  as  time 
did  away  with  the  originating  grievance,  merely 
took  a  seat  at  one  side  in  the  clerk's  chair,  that 
official  humbly  standing  at  his  back,  and  the  mod- 
erator of  the  committee  occupying  a  stool  at  his 
elbow.2 

At  one  time,  in  the  Little  Parliament  summoned 
by  Cromwell,  the  four  grand  committees,  for  Be- 

1  Stubbs's  "Lectures  on  Mediaeval  and  Modern  History,"  271- 
274. 

2  Journal  of  tbe  House  of  Commons,  March  23,  1610. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  9 

ligion,  for  Grievances,  for  Courts  of  Justice,  for 
Trade,  with  the  already  select  standing  Committee 
on  Privileges  and  Elections,  were  organized  on  a 
numerical  basis,  which  promised  for  the  moment 
a  committee  system  like  those  now  existing  in 
American  legislatures;  but  the  tide  of  British  his- 
tory, shortly  sweeping  away  the  innovation,  re- 
stored the  former  voluntary  methods,  whereby  all 
Commoners  who  attended  a  committee  meeting 
had  voices.  Finally,  when  the  House  of  Commons 
had  grasped  to  itself  the  supremacy  over  all  other 
branches  of  the  government,  it  produced  that  all- 
absorbing  committee,  the  Cabinet,  and  turned  over 
to  courts  of  justice  the  duties  of  its  committee  on 
elections.  Since  1883  the  ancient  grand  commit- 
tees have  been  revived.  It  is  a  long  story,  that  of 
the  use  of  committees  in  the  Parliament  of  our 
mother  country,  with  many  turnings  and  wind- 
ings, with  incidents  in  the  four  centuries  preced- 
ing 1789  to  parallel  almost  every  incident  and 
illustrate  almost  every  phase  of  the  committee 
since  1789,  as  in  the  light  of  our  own  experi- 
ence. 

Inquiry  is  necessary  only  as  to  its  more  direct 
connections  with  the  procedure  of  Congress.  That 
stage  in  British  parliamentary  experience  from 
which  our  young  colonial  legislatures  drew  most 
was  the  very  one  —  so  brilliant  in  its  annals — to 
which  attention  has  been  called,  when,  under  the 


10  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

stress  of  a  life-and-death  grapple  between  monar- 
chy and  representation,  the  machinery  of  law-mak- 
ing was  taking  fundamental  and  lasting  outlines. 
The  first  and,  next  to  the  Pennsylvania  Assembly, 
the  chief  medium  for  transmission  of  British  forms 
to  our  Federal  Congress  was  the  Virginia  House 
of  Burgesses.  That  "  miniature  parliament "  of 
twenty-two,  gathered  in  the  choir  of  Jamestown's 
church,  was  ludicrously  yet  reverently  imitative 
of  the  mother  assembly  that  sat  beneath  London 
spires.1  Its  first  step  was  a  solemn  consideration 
of  the  credentials  of  its  members ;  its  first  business 
was  performed  mainly  by  two  committees,  consist- 
ing each  of  eight  members,  —  standing  committees, 
too,  since  they  lasted  throughout  the  session  of 
six  days  !  1 

Williamsburg,  St.  Mary's,  and  Philadelphia  saw 
the  speech  from  the  throne,  the  processions  and 
humble  addresses  of  Lords  and  Commons,  verily 
outdone  by  Governor,  Council,  and  Assembly.2 
These  ceremonies  were  the  foundation  later  in 
New  York  City  for  those  opening  exercises  as  with 
President,  Senate,  and  Representatives,  whose  in- 
fluence in  shaping  our  committee  systems  later 
pages  of  this  study  will  trace. 

The  earliest  legislative  archives  of  Maryland  and 

1  Virginia  Colonial  Records. 

2  The  colonial  journals  give  these  addresses,  which  are  pro- 
totypes of  our  presidential  and  gubernatorial  messages.  Parton 
vividly  describes  the  scenes,  "  Life  of  Jefferson,"  89-93. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  11 

Pennsylvania  indicate  some  subservience  of  presid- 
ing officers  towards  the  proprietors.  The  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  or  Grand  Committee,  was  in 
use  from  the  outset.  That  the  device  was  slow 
in  obtaining  its  original  use  in  the  Old  Dominion 
may  be  inferred  from  an  incident  of  the  memor- 
able year  1676:  tin*  Burgesses,  finding  themselves 
subjected  to  the  same  tyrannical  scrutiny  which 
had  led  the  British  Commons  to  their  secret  after- 
noon sessions,  knew  not,  blunt,  honest  fellows,  how- 
to  avoid  Berkeley  and  his  Connoilmen;  through 
"T.  M.  of  Strafford91  they  have  registered  the 

complaint  that  they  "  must  submit  t<>  he  overawed 
and  have  every  carpt  at  expression  carried  streight 
to  the  Governor."  lint  the  days  of  the  greater 
rebellion  just  a  century  thence  found  the  Virgin* 
ians  thoroughly  familiar  with  this  committee  of 
freedom.  Therein  Patrick  Hemy  sounded  the 
bugle  of  revolution,  and  Virginia  laid  the  corner- 
stone of  national  government.1 

In  later  colonial  times  legislators  read  and  com- 
mon-placed the  books  of  the  ancient  parliamenta- 
rians, among  them  Elsynge,  the  clerk  of  the 
Commons  who  resigned  to  escape  the  troubles 
with  Charles  I. ;  Hakewill  and  D'Ewes,  members 
of  the  lower  House,  the  former  under  James  I.,  the 
latter  under  Cromwell ;  and  Grey,  the  compiler 
of  debates,  whose  manuscripts  were  consulted  by 

1  Bancroft's  "History  of  United  States,"  ITT.  110-112,  436,  437. 


12  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Arthur  Onslow,  for  thirty-three  years  the  model 
Speaker.1 

But,  as  emphasized  by  the  latest  critics,  New 
World  institutions  have  a  large  element  of  spon- 
taneity or  originality.  Jefferson  suspects  that 
the  commonest  forms  of  English  procedure  —  so 
common  that  no  one  has  thought  to  put  them  in 
writing  —  have  escaped  the  Virginians  in  their 
"quarter  of  the  globe."  From  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent's chair  he  complained  to  Wythe  :  "  So  little 
has  the  Parliamentary  branch  of  the  law  been  at- 
tended to,  that  I  not  only  find  no  person,  but  not 
even  a  book  to  aid  me."  The  House  of  Represen- 
tatives, said  he,  had  ways*  of  its  own  —  looked  not 
up  to  the  Senate  as  it  should  have  done,  but  in- 
clined to  run  after  the  "awkward,"  "unparlia- 
mentary "  and  "  inconvenient "  practice  of  the  Old 
Congress.2  Whoever  will  compare  the  Cis-  and 
Trans-Atlantic  journals  for  the  later  decades  of 
the  eighteenth  century  must  be  impressed  with 
their    differences.     The   great  intervening  ocean, 

1  Onslow  served  from  1728  until  1761.  In  his  Manual,  Jeffer- 
son constantly  refers  to  these  and  other  seventeenth  century- 
authors  ;  sketches  of  their  lives,  and  titles  of  their  publications, 
are  given  in  the  Dictionary  of  National  Biography. 

2  Five  letters  of  his  upon  the  state  of  legislative  practice  may 
be  consulted  in  Jefferson's  "  Works,"  IX.  6 ;  Ford's  "  Writings  of 
Jefferson,"  VII.  110,  426,  430.  As  early  as  1812  the  House  pur- 
chased fifty  copies  of  Jefferson's  Manual  ;  it  has  been  the  sole 
authority  prescribed  by  the  rules  since  1837,  but  is  now  rarely 
cited.  Cf.  statement  of  Revision  Committee,  C.  R.,  January  6, 
1880. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  13 

narrowed  but  little  by  printing  and  not  at  all  by 
steam  or  electricity,  cut  off  the  American  legisla- 
tor, and  confined  him  to  his  own  resources. 

What  were  the  chief  American  contributions  to 
procedure  before  1789?  Of  deliberative  assem- 
blies in  the  background  of  our  Congress  were  the 
conventions  which  framed  and  ratified  the  Con- 
stitution, and,  receding  beyond  one  another,  the 
Confederation  and  Continental  Congresses,  the 
legislatures  of  statehood  and  colonial  dependency, 
the  smaller  local  units,  the  county,  the  vestry,  the 
township.  Considering  only  these  public  bodies, 
there  was  much  opportunity  for  original  parlia- 
mentary developments,  and  they  were  the  schools 
from  which  the  men  who  Bet  the  new  government 
going  came  with  long  experience.  Most  advanced 
of  the  thirteen  original  States  were  Virginia,  Penn- 
sylvania, and  Massachusetts.  From  them  came 
almost  all  the  fonnulative  forces  for  Congressional 
procedure.  Legislative  chambers  in  the  other  col- 
onics had  not  attained  to  a  size  and  an  activity 
which  necessitated  much  interest  in  new  methods. 
Besides  Jefferson  in  the  Senate,  Virginia's  Bur- 
gesses gave  Madison  as  the  first  floor  leader  of 
the  House,  and  sent  to  it  their  clerk,  rare  John 
Beckley,  to  impress,  by  many  years  of  service,  the 
forms  of  the  Old  Dominion  as  only  the  clerk  had 
opportunity.  Madison  and  R.  B.  Lee  were  mem- 
bers of  the  first  House  Committee  on  Rules,  whose 


14  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

report  is  still,  as  in  Hildreth's  time,  "the  basis  of 
Congressional  action."  Of  the  nine  other  mem- 
bers on  this  committee,  Massachusetts  had  two ; 
Connecticut,  two ;  New  Hampshire,  one,  —  almost 
a  majority  for  New  England.  New  Jersey  had 
two,  Pennsylvania  and  South  Carolina  each  one. 
Massachusetts'  General  Court  gave  the  Senate  its 
first  President,  Pennsylvania's  Assembly  sent  its 
Speaker  to  preside  over  the  first  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives. Keystone  methods  were  further  ren- 
dered pre-eminent  through  the  existence  of  all  the 
Pennsylvania  journals  in  published  form,  credit  for 
which  —  and  accordingly  for  furnishing  the  mod- 
els of  our  national  legislature — belongs  to  Benja- 
min Franklin,  one-time  clerk  of  the  Assembly,  and 
in  1752  its  first  public  printer.  He  is  the  father 
of  Congressional  printing. 

The  Massachusetts  towns  are  the  many  tiny 
springs  of  American  government  held  by  histo- 
rians equally  important  with  the  larger  single 
streams  of  Virginia  and  Pennsylvania.  In  them, 
more  than  anywhere  else  among  the  colonies,  in- 
stitutions seem  freest  from  Old  World  precedent. 
In  them,  from  pure  democracy,  rises  first  pure 
representation,  then  pure  committeeship.  All  is 
on  the  broad  basis  of  framing  "  equal  laws  for  the 
general  good."  The  political  seed  springs  in  vir- 
gin soil.  Representation  is  regenerated.  Again 
all  the  successive  stages  are  passed  through,  but 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  15 

more  easily  and  rapidly  than  in  the  former  growth. 
Because  of  race  inheritances,  the  marks  and  scars  of 
the  old,  slow  development  do  not  reappear,  but  the 
essential  excellences  are  retained  and  surpassed. 

Two  features  of  this  process  may  be  marked, 
bearing,  indeed,  upon  the  very  broadest  differences 
to-day  observable  between  our  institutions  and 
those  of  other  lands,  but  having  much  to  do  with 
the  distinctive  characteristics  of  American  com- 
mittee systems.  One  is  in  the  New  World  man 
himself;  the  other,  in  his  conditions.  The  New 
Englander  led  his  fellow-colonists  as  an  advocate 

of  individual  freedom  and  democrat  ie  equality. 
Bancroft  traces  Puritan  ideas  back  to  Luther,  Cal- 
vin, and  Krasmus.  As  was  the  man,  BO  were  his 
politics.  Not  only  the  new  nation,  but  also  its 
governmental  establishments,  were  "dedicated  to 
the  proposition  of  equality."  One  representative 
must  not  exalt  himself  above  another,  nor  a  com- 
mitteeman do  obeisance  to  his  fellow.  To  the 
common  condition  of  men  in  the  English  middle 
class  from  which  came  our  first  colonists,  and  to 
the  racial  and  religious  inheritances  that  can  be 
traced  beyond  the  leaders  of  the  Reformation,  ought 
to  be  added  that  stripping  away  of  artificial  dis- 
tinctions in  wealth  and  rank  which  pioneer  life  is 
so  well  understood  to  involve.  The  frontier  has 
scarcely  yet  ceased  to  be  a  factor  in  American 
life.     Besides  the  personal  quality,  another  form 


16  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

of  equality  was  revived  and  strengthened  in  New 
World  settlement;  namely,  that  ancient  equality 
of  tribes  and  petty  localities  in  treating  one  with 
another.  Isolation,  climate,  and  differences  of 
origin  are  here  accountable.  In  general  courts 
and  assemblies,  towns  or  counties  held  equal  rep- 
resentation ;  in  Continental  Congresses,  thirteen 
small  and  great  colonies  had  each  a  single  voice.1 
Legislative  machinery  had  also  to  be  fitted  at  first 
to  small  aggregations  of  men.  Mainly  herein  lay 
the  absurdity  of  Locke's  "  Grand  Model,"  and 
the  failure  of  Penn's  first  "  Frame  of  Govern- 
ment." It  was  not  as  when  Frenchmen  apply  a 
ready-made  constitution  to  their  populous  land. 
Just  as  the  first  settlement  threw  off  other  settle- 
ments, and  these  all,  as  they  grew,  united  into 
counties  and  colonies,  so  from  simpler  embryonic 
forms  of  pure  democracy  government  was  differen- 
tiated into  departments,  and  expanded  to  meet  by 
representative  systems  the  needs  of  growing  popu- 
lations. Representation  was  not  at  first  in  de- 
mand. The  device  was  well  known,  but  its  use 
deferred.  When  it  came,  its  sphere  increased  grad- 
ually by  subtraction  from  democracy.  Multiply- 
ing population  meant  multiplying  legislators  ;  and, 
with  a  larger  body  of  representatives,  committees, 

1  On  the  mixing  of  territorial  with  popular  equality,  as  well 
as  on  a  general  return  to  first  principles,  in  pioneer  Tennessee,  cf . 
Roosevelt's  "Winning  of  the  West,"  II.  3M-347,  361-369,  383. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  17 

at  first  not  so  much  needed  or  used,  slowly  ad- 
vanced towards  the  power  and  importance  which 
custom  had  long  yielded  to  those  of  the  massive 
old  assembly  in  more  populous  England. 

In  a  sense  the  selectmen  and  other  permanent 
officers  evolved  by  the  New  England  town-meet- 
ing were  its  standing  committees,  while  from  the 
time  of  its  origin  it  used  the  ordinary  select 
committee  for  performance  of  its  multitudinous 
functions.1  The  interesting  era  of  these  select 
committees  comes  a  century  and  a  half  after  the 
landing  of  the  Pilgrims.  Tin-  oapacrftiee  of  repre- 
sentation were  developed  in  Old  England  by  the 
pedantic  tyranny  of  James  I.;  George  III.,  with 
his  obstinate  menaces,  wrought  in  New  England 
liie  same  enlargement.  At  IJraintree,  John  Adams 
got  a  first  taste  of  fame  by  his  report  from  a 
town  committee,  —  a  denunciation  of  the  Stamp 
Act,  printed  in  the  newspapers  and  adopted,  la; 
declares,  by  forty  towns.2  This  episode  was  but 
a  forerunner  to  the  memorable  event  seven  years 
later  ■  in  Boston's  town-meeting,  when  Samuel 
Adams  seized  upon  the  committee  idea,  and  with 
it  laid  broad  foundations  for  a  continent-spanning 
political  system.8     Nov.  2,  1772,  in  face  of  jeer- 

1  The  Massachusetts  Records,  I.  44,  47,  48,  contain  instances  of 
the  use  of  committees  hy  the  governor  and  council  in  1629. 

2  C.  F.  Adams's  "Three  Episodes  of  Massachusetts  History," 
838-839. 

8  Bancroft's  "  History  of  United  States,"  III.  420. 


18  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ing  Tories  and  timid  Whigs,  he  carried  his  motion 
for  a  Committee  of  Correspondence,  twenty-one 
in  number,  to  state  the  rights  of  the  colonies,  and 
communicate  with  the  several  towns  of  Massachu- 
setts. It  was  a  new  application  and  combination 
of  two  old  instruments,  the  committee  and  the 
printing-press  ;  and  was  hailed  shortly  as  an  inspi- 
ration from  heaven  or  an  emanation  from  the  devil. 
It  was  "the  highest  mark  the  town-meeting  ever 
touched."  Before  long  the  New  England  towns 
generally  had  followed  Boston's  example  with  a 
shower  of  pamphleteering  as  portentous  as  that 
which  at  the  same  time  or  a  little  later  became 
the  dynamic  force  of  the  French  Revolution.1 

On  the  whole,  New  England  committees  were 
carefully  and  lengthily  instructed,  summarily  and 
vigorously  controlled.2.  They  were  freely  put  to 
every  variety  of  use.  In  Rhode  Island's  early  his- 
tory investigating  committees  traveled  from  town 
to  town,  and  joint  committees  acted  for  Provi- 
dence and  Warwick.3  The  first  provincial  con- 
gresses neatly  adapted  the  sizes  of  their  committees 
to  the  manifold  purposes  which  the  war  emergen- 

1  Six  of  these  committees  superintended  the  Boston  Tea  Party. 
King  George  is  said  to  have  believed  that  each  town  had  its  regu- 
lar committee  on  tarring  and  feathering ! 

2  C.  F.  Adams's  "Three  Episodes  of  Massachusetts  History," 
584,  822,  831-834. 

s  Case  of  Rev.  Mr.  McSparran  (1719)  in  Munro's  "  History  of 
Bristol,  Rhode  Island."  "  Early  Records  of  the  Towne  of  Provi- 
dence," II.  65;  year  1652. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  19 

cies  of  the  Revolution  evolved.  There  were  rou- 
tine or  ceremonial  committees  of  two  or  three, 
committees  of  men  selected  for  special  fitness,  and 
committees  representing  in  their  composition  the 
various  counties  and  localities  of  the  Common- 
wealth. 

To  the  Virginia  House  of  Burgesses,  it  is  well 
known,  belongs  the  next  step  beyond  the  town  co- 
operation of  New  Rngland  ;  namely,  the  institution 
of  intercolonial  standing  committees  of  correspond- 
ence, and  thence  the  way  led  to  the  Continental 
Congress,  the  Confederation,  the  Federal  Union.1 
At  the  time  when  the  Federal  Union  began,  the 
Virginians  were  making  a  large  use  of  select  com- 
mittees, each  of  which  was  created  only  after  dis- 
cussion of  a  subject  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
bad  revealed  the  advisability  of  bringing  in  a  bill. 
They  had  also  an  emerging  block  of  standing  com- 
mittees appointed  at  the  beginning  of  and  lasting 
throughout  a  session.  The  titles  of  these  were: 
Religion,  Privileges  and  Elections,  Propositions 
and  Grievances,  Courts  of  Justice,  Claims,  Com- 
merce, Trade.  Several  had  evidently  taken  the 
names  of  the  old-time  English  grand  committees. 
Clerks  were  granted  to  them,  and  important  pow- 
ers freely  conferred.  A  small  quorum  was  pre- 
scribed for  each.  Unwieldy  size  was  their  great 
defect,  due  partly,  it  seems,  to  reckless  additions 

1  Frothingham's  "Rise  of  the  Republic,"  234. 


20  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

to  their  numbers  from  time  to  time.  The  Propo- 
sitions and  Grievances,  for  example,  had  above 
eighty  members.1 

The  Pennsylvania  Assembly  evidently  furnished 
much  the  largest  part  of  our  national  law-making 
devices.  Therefore  a  particular  examination  of  its 
history  is  appropriate.  The  men  who  crossed  the 
Atlantic  to  found  the  Quaker  State  came  fresh 
from  the  most  interesting  constitutional  develop- 
ments and  the  most  renowned  Parliamentary  pro- 
ceedings in  English  history.  William  Penn  had 
his  own  ideas  of  legislative  processes,  as  well  as 
of  state-building  in  general.  In  his  first  "frame 
of  government"  he  embodied  a  plan  for  a  com- 
mittee system  so  striking  that  it  is  given  full  pre- 
sentation as  follows :  — 

"That  for  the  better  Management  of  the  Powers  and 
Trust  aforesaid  the  Provincial  Council  shall,  from  time  to 
time,  divide  itself  into  four  distinct  and  proper  Committees, 
for  the  more  easy  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  Prov- 
ince, which  divides  the  Seventy-two  into  four  Eighteens, 
every  one  of  which  Eighteens  shall  consist  of  Six  out  of 
the  three  Orders  or  yearly  Elections,  each  of  which  shall 
have  a  distinct  Portion  of  Business,  as  f olloweth :  First, 
a  Committee  of  Plantations,  to  situate  and  settle  Cities, 
Ports,  Market-Towns,  and  Highways,  and  to  hear  and  de- 
cide all  Suits  and  Controversies  relating  to  Plantations. 
Secondly,  a  Committee  of  Justice  and  Safety,  to  secure  the 

1  Journal  of  the  House  of  Delegates  begun  and  held  at  Rich- 
mond, Oct.  20,  1788. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  21 

Peace  of  the  Province,  and  punish  the  Male- Administration 
of  those  who  subvert  Justice  to  the  Prejudice  of  the  pub- 
lick  or  private  Interest.  Thirdly,  a  Committee  of  Trade 
and  Treasury,  who  shall  regulate  all  Trade  and  Commerce 
according  to  Law,  encourage  Manufacture  and  Country- 
Growth,  and  defray  the  publick  charge  of  the  Province. 
And  Fourthly,  a  Committee  of  Manners*  Education,  ami 
Arts,  that  all  wicked  and  scandalous  Living  may  be  pre- 
vented, and  that  Youth  may  be  successively  trained  np  iu 
Virtue  and  useful  Knowledge  and  Arts.  The  Quorum  of 
each  of  which  Committees  being  Six,  that  is,  Two  out  of 
each  of  the  three  Orders  or  Yearly  Elections  as  aforesaid, 
make  a  constant  and  standing  Council  of  TWENTY- 
FOUR,  which  will  have  the  Power  of  the  Provincial  Coun- 
cil, being  the  Quorum  of  it,  in  all  Cases  not  excepted  in 
the  Fifth  Article;  and  in  the  said  Committees  and  stand- 
ing Council  of  the  Province,  the  Governor  or  his  Deputy 
shall  or  may  preside  as  aforesaid;  and  in  the  absence  of 
the  Governor  or  his  Deputy,  if  no  one  is  by  either  of  them 
appointed,  the  said  Committees  or  Council,  shall  appoint  a 
President  for  that  Time,  and  not  otherwise ;  and  what  shall 
be  resolved  at  such  committees,  shall  be  reported  to  the 
said  Council  of  the  Province,  and  shall  be  by  them  resolved 
and  confirmed  before  the  said  shall  be  put  in  Execution ; 
and  that  these  respective  Committees  ^hall  not  sit  at  one 
and  the  same  time  except  in  Cases  of  Necessity." 

Under  this  constitution  the  Council  originated  all 
legislation,  and  was  in  consequence  much  more  im- 
portant than  the  Assembly.  Of  course  the  beauti- 
fully symmetrical  committee  scheme  utterly  failed 
in  the  wilderness.  Instead  of  the  seventy-two 
members  that  it  called  for,  but  sixteen  appeared 


22  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

for  the  first  session.  These  were  divided  into 
three  committees  as  nearly  equal  in  size  as  possi- 
ble. Instead  of  the  grand  general  objects  laid  out, 
to  one  of  them  was  "  refered  the  burning  of  woods 
and  Marshes,  to  have  Chattel  marked,  to  erect 
Bounds  of  ffences;"  and  to  another  the  prepara- 
tion of  bills  "  about  Prisons,  Sowing  of  hemp  and 
Flax,  Runaways,  Passes,  Selling  of  Servt8,  into  other 
provinces,  for  Destroying  Wolves,  to  raise  Money, 
&  a  bill  for  Hogg  stealers."  The  Council  soon 
dwindled  in  number  and  importance  to  such  an 
extent  that  its  use  of  committees  was  discontinued. 
Nevertheless,  Penn's  ideas  were  those  of  America's 
future,  as  the  objects  of  many  a  present  committee 
list  testify  in  the  very  words  of  his  plan ;  his  clear 
vision  of  order  and  equality  has  prevailed,  and 
should  prevail  more  fully,  in  all  our  legislative 
processes.1 

Attempted  imitation  of  Parliament  is  evident 
on  the  face  of  the  first  Pennsylvania  Assembly's 
journal.  Having  nothing  to  do,  since  it  was  but 
a  revising  body,  it  occupied  itself  at  the  outset 
of  that  three  days'  session  with  a  consideration 
of  parliamentary  practice,  and  the  formulation  of 
a  crude  written  procedure.  With  a  degree  of 
conservatism  surprising  even  for  them,  the  Penn- 
sylvanians  held  to  this  down  to  the  inception  of 

1  On  the  first  Pennsylvania  Council,  cf.  Roosevelt's  "  Winning 
of  the  West,"  II.  361-369. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  23 

our  national  government,  and  carried  it  to  Con- 
gress, whence  its  influence  has  spread  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  land.  Its  items 
were  reenacted  and  improved  from  time  to  time, 
so  that  in  Revolutionary  days  they  formed  a  code 
of  nineteen  neatly  arranged  and  numbered  rules.1 
In  them,  and  still  more  in  the  Assembly  records 
generally,  is  traceable  through  a  devious  history 
the  interweaving  of  old  English  methods  with 
innovations  that  are  now  especially  a  part  of  the 
practice  of  our  national  House  of  Representatives. 
Of  these  may  be  noted  the  power  of  the  Speaker, 
the  previous  question,  and  various  leading  fea- 
tures of  the  committee  system. 

A  large  share  in  legislation  belonged  to  the 
Pennsylvania  Speaker  from  the  outset.  He  it 
was,  evidently,  who  in  the  times  of  William  Penn 
compiled  the  rules,  which  were  approved  by  vote 
at  the  beginnings  of  sessions,  and  tacked  to  the 
door  of  the  Assembly  chamber.  Later  he  was  a 
member  of  committees  on  rules,  which  were  raised 
regularly.  He  was  also  upon  other  important  com- 
mittees. He  made  motions  and  participated  in 
debates.  He  granted  or  withheld  leave  of  ab- 
sence, and  gave  "religious  and  wholesome  coun- 
sel." As  early  as  1687  he  began  to  acquire  the 
appointment  of  committees,  a  privilege  which  was 

1  Journal  of  Pennsylvania  Assembly,  Nov.  30, 1776.  For  rules 
of  1703,  see  Appendix. 


24  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

entirely  vested  in  him  by  rule  in  1701.  In  the 
above-noticed  first  body  of  rules  of  1682,  he  ob- 
tained a  power  which  may  be  called  the  origin  of 
the  cloture.  The  words  are,  "Superfluous  and 
tedious  Speeches  may  be  stopt  by  the  Speaker." 
To  these  words  by  1703  was  added,  "If  it  shall  at 
any  Time  happen,  that  a  Debate  prove  tedious,  and 
any  four  Members  shall  stand  up,  and  request  the 
Speaker  to  put  the  Matter  in  Debate  to  the  Vote, 
he  shall  not  refuse  it."  In  the  years  immediately 
preceding  1789  this  summary  process  in  some 
way,  ignorantly  or  intentionally,  came  to  be  called 
the  previous  question.  The  English  form  of  the 
previous  question,  at  that  time  and  always,  has 
been  merely  an  awkward  and  puzzling  motion 
favorable  to  postponement.  The  Speaker  of  the 
Commons  would  ordinarily  put  a  subject  to  vote 
when  his  judgment  told  him  that  no  one  desired 
further  to  discuss  or  to  amend;  but  any  member 
had  the  right  to  raise  the  question  previously, 
"Shall  the  main  question  be  now  put?"  If  the 
House  decided  that  it  should  not,  the  matter  was 
without  further  ado  swept  aside  in  favor  of  other 
business.  Later  consideration  of  our  subject  will 
involve  extended  notice  of  the  entrance  of  this 
Pennsylvania  invention  into  national  usage  as  the 
very  vital  nucleus  of  legislative  systems.  Though 
the  Virginians  had  the  beginnings  of  standing  com- 
mittees, the  Pennsylvanians  were  much  farther  ad- 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  25 

vanced.  Upon  the  opening  of  a  later  Provincial 
Assembly,  they  appointed  moderately  sized  com- 
mittees for  Ways  and  Means,  Accounts,  Revision 
of  the  Laws  and  the  Minutes,  Revision  of  the 
Criminal  Laws,  Rules,  Claims,  Unfinished  Busi- 
ness, the  President's  Message.  Most  of  these  lasted 
throughout  all  the  sessions  of  that  Assembly. 
Their  names  are  suggestive  of  the  early  lists  in  the 
national  House  —  indeed,  all  the  forms  of  open- 
ing proceedings  at  New  York  in  1  7 s '. *  seem  to  have 
been  copied  almost  literally  after  those  which  had 
long  prevailed  in  Philadelphia.  Through  long 
and  turbulent  annals  the  exchange  of  courtesies 
between  Pennsylvania's  Executive  and  Assembly 
had  been  reduced  to  an  exact  science,  and  one  of 
the  practices  of  the  legislature  was  known  as  the 
"dissection  of  the  President's  Message."  As  soon 
as  a  communication  from  the  president  had  been 
read,  it  was  submitted  for  analysis  to  a  committee 
of  three,  who  presently  reported  recommending  so 
many  committees  of  three,  sometimes  as  high  as  a 
dozen,  upon  such  of  the  various  subjects  mentioned 
by  His  Excellency  as  it  deemed  worthy  of  the  honor. 
This  practice  was  applied  also  to  unfinished  busi- 
ness revived  from  a  former  session  or  assembly. 
Together  with  the  small,  uniform  sizes  of  com- 
mittees to  which  it  gave  rise,  it  is  particularly 
pertinent  to  the  Congressional  beginnings.1 

1  Attention  should  be  directed  to  the  many  influences  of  State 


26  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Concerning  the  use  of  committees  in  the  na- 
tional Congresses  from  1774  to  1789,  the  follow- 
ing salient  points  may  be  observed.  On  the  third 
day  at  Carpenter's  Hall  in  1774,  with  forty-five 
members  present,  two  committees  were  named  to 
state  the  rights  of  the  colonists  and  the  instances 
of  their  infringement.  The  first  consisted  of  two 
members,  the  second  of  one  member  from  each 
State  present.  After  a  time  the  entire  business  was 
merged  in  the  larger  of  the  two.  Naively  writes 
John  Adams  in  1804:  "This  committee  .  .  .  be- 
came an  object  of  jealousy  to  all  the  other  members 
of  Congress."  1  Jealousy  is  a  sentinel  that  calls 
the  halt  upon  every  step  of  government  towards 
centralization. 

A  measure  in  that  ante-constitutional  period,  that 
time  of  long-spun  discussion  and  thorough  sifting, 
ran  about  the  following  gantlet:  first,  broached 
and  debated  in  the  House ;  second,  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  and  debated ;  third,  re- 
ferred to  a  select  committee  and  debated ;  fourth, 
referred  to  one  or  two  individuals  for  drafting ; 
fifth,  back  again  by  the  same  stages,  with  debate 
and  amendment  all  the  way,  until  the  final  vote 
of  acceptance  or  rejection  put  an  end  to  a  process 

legislatures,  new  and  old,  upon  the  national  procedure  down  to 
date,  a  very  large  subject.  Later  instances  are  to  be  had  in  Fol- 
lett's  "The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives,"  92,  155, 

201. 

1  Works  of  John  Adams,  II.  373-377. 


ORIGINS   AND  ANTECEDENTS.  27 

which  often  lasted  for  weeks  and  months.1  In 
a  leisurely  way  the  appointment  of  a  committee 
was  determined  upon  one  day,  its  size  and  compo- 
sition fixed  the  next.  As  a  rule,  no  two  of  its 
members  were  from  the  same  State.  But  between 
war-time  and  peace  methods  there  was  marked  dif- 
ference, especially  in  point  of  committee  stability 
and  power.  The  opponents  of  Independence  in 
1776,  by  raising  Committees  of  the  Whole  upon 
trivial  subjects,  made  them  their  1  tattle-ground 
for  delay,  while  the  radicals  fought  for  select  com- 
mittees.2 Occasionally  there  was  the  promise  of 
a  standing  committee  ;  one  on  claims  —  styled  a 
grand  emnmittee  because  it  consisted  of  one  mem- 
ber from  each  State  lasted  about  a  year,  and 
reported  eighty-odd  times.  But  by  far  t he  greater 
number  of  the  select  committees,  of  which  in  the 
journals  for  the  period  <>t'  fifteen  years  there  is  rec- 
ord of  more  than  eight  hundred,  were  short-lived, 
limited  to  a  single  and  often  a  trivial  subject,  and 
liable  to  be  at  any  moment  unceremoniously  su- 
perseded. The  most  important  interests  changed 
hands  with  a  rapidity  almost  kaleidoscopic.  For 
example,  within  six  years  the  infant  navy  was 
put  out  to  nine  different  sets  of  nurses,  such  a 
management  as  to  leave  the  country  without  ships 

1  For  an  example  of  this  word-weighing  debate,  cf.  Bancroft's 
"History  of  the  United  States,"  III.  273. 
a  Works  of  John  Adams,  III.  43. 


28  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

at  the  close  of  the  Revolution,  and  defenseless 
against  the  jealous  powers  beyond  the  Atlantic.1 
Likewise  the  all-important  future  of  the  North- 
west Territory  was  left  by  the  same  shifting  sys- 
tem to  the  dominion  "  of  Providence."  2  Certain 
committees  whose  functions  were  executive  are  es- 
pecially important  as  measures  of  centralizing  ten- 
dencies in  the  Congresses.  They  are  the  boards 
of  War,  Treasury,  and  Admiralty,  and  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  States  intended  to  sit  in  the  recesses. 
The  first  three  were  rather  hybrid  in  make-up, 
more  of  commissions  than  committees.  Each  con- 
sisted of  five  members,  two  from  the  Congress  and 
three  outsiders.3  Each  had  broad  executive  pow- 
ers so  far  as  Congress  could  grant  them,  and  ac- 
commodations such  as  those  of  the  present  House 
have  obtained  only  after  a  century  of  pleading. 

From  Jefferson's  little  book  on  parliamentary 
practice,  his  legacy  to  the  Senate  upon  retiring 
from  its  chair,  may  be  gleaned  an  estimate  of  the 
stage  at  which  procedure,  in  America  in  general 
and  in  Virginia  in  particular,  had  then  arrived, 
and  of  American  knowledge  of  usage  beyond  the 
Atlantic.4     Its  pages  show  that  committee  proceed- 

1  Goldsborough's  "  Naval  Chronicle  of  the  United  States  " 
sketches  these  transfers.. 

2  Bancroft's  "History  of  the  United  States,"  VI.,  chapter  vi. 

8  This  was  the  composition  only  for  a  limited  time  in  the  his- 
tory of  each  board. 

4  Jefferson  acknowledges  his  debt  for  information  to  Hatsell, 
Clerk  of  the  Commons  from  1760  to  1797. 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  29 

ings  were  not  published  ;  that  committees  were  for- 
bidden to  receive  petitions  except  through  the 
House,  or  to  sit  when  notified  that  the  House  was 
in  session ;  that  joint  committees  of  Lords  and 
Commons  often,  if  not  always,  acted  integrally. 
Among  many  precedents  cited  for  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  are  its  privilege  of  electing  a  chair- 
man other  than  the  one  named  by  the  Speaker,  its 
entire  freedom  for  debate,  its  right  of  initial  con- 
sideration over  revenue,  executive  messages,  and 
other  important  matters,  which  in  the  processes  of 
thorough  debate,  it  must  transform  into  resolutions 
to  be  presented  in  the  House,  whence  they  were 
to  be  referred  to  select  committees  as  bases  for 
bills.  The  forms  of  going  into  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  of  resuming  the  sitting  of  the  House,  of 
reporting,  even  the  position  of  the  mace  upon 
or  under  the  table,  are  noted.  When  select  com- 
mittees conducted  inquiries,  witnesses  were  to  be 
questioned  only  through  the  chairman  ;  all  persons 
save  the  committeemen  were  to  retire  pending  par- 
liamentary action  or  discussion,  and  the  testimony 
was  to  be  taken  in  writing  for  submission  to  the 
House.  The  Speaker  should  appoint  committees, 
but  the  House  should  have  "  a  controuling  power 
over  the  names  and  number."  A  bill  should  be 
committed  only  to  those  friendly  to  its  main  fea- 
tures, for  "the  child  is  not  to  be  put  to  a  nurse 
that  cares  not  for  it."     Unless  the  House  named 


30  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

the  hour  and  the  place,  the  committee  might  sit 
anywhere  and  at  any  time.  The  committee  quo- 
rum was  a  majority.  Any  member  of  the  House 
could  be  present  at  a  select  committee's  sessions, 
but  only  its  members  could  vote.  There  was  full 
power  to  change  a  bill  or  other  paper  committed, 
save  as  regarded  the  title.  Committees  could  them- 
selves originate  bills,  resolutions,  and  addresses. 
Finally  the  chairman  was  to  make  the  report ;  and 
when  he  had  concluded,  if  the  bill  were  not  re- 
committed to  it,  the  committee  stood  dissolved  and 
powerless.  Besides  these  particulars,  the  general 
setting  which  this  treatise  gave  to  the  committees 
of  an  assembly,  especially  the  broad  latitude  for 
debate  and  amendment  of  their  work,  ought  to  be 
considered.  Jefferson's  Manual  is  his  penance  to 
England  for  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It 
has  carried  Freedom's  primal  precedents  from  the 
older  to  the  newer  "  land  of  settled  government." 
Says  Parton,  "  Its  influence  lives  to-day  in  every 
legislative  hall  of  the  country." 

These  heads  are  now  noted  as  to  the  origins 
and  antecedents  of  procedure  in  the  American 
Congress : 

Legislative  committee  systems  may  be  called 
advanced  stages  in  the  development  of  popular 
sovereignty.  When  governments  were  in  their 
infancy,  both  in  Old  England  and  in  New  Eng- 
land, what  are  now  known  as  the  executive,  judi- 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  31 

cial,  and  legislative  powers,  or  as  local  and  central 
administrations,  were  as  yet  not  separated  and 
distinguished  from  one  another.  Increasing  num- 
bers of  men  in  the  State,  occupying  larger  areas  of 
land,  necessitated  the  plan  of  representation  for 
the  making  of  laws,  besides  distinct  departments 
for  their  enforcement  and  interpretation.  An  un- 
wieldy mass-meeting  of  lawmakers,  with  growing 
demands  tor  dispatch  of  needed  legislation,  was 
compelled  to  resort  to  committees  for  a  division 
and  multiplication  of  its  work. 

From  England  the  American  colonies,  most  no- 
tably Pennsylvania  and  Virginia,  drew  and  trans- 
mitted to  the  legislative  bodies  of  our  Federal 
Union  the  commonest  parliamentary  forms  relat- 
ing to  the  use  of  select  and  standing  committees, 
as  well  as  the  device  known  as  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole. 

In  the  colonial  life,  there  were  important  origi- 
nal developments  in  methods  of  lawmaking.  The 
broad  basis  of  society  being,  by  contrast  with  Old 
World  peoples,  laid  largely  in  the  idea  of  equality 
between  man  and  man,  this  doctrine  was  carried 
into  the  superstructure,  and  applied  first  to  the 
representative  body,  then  to  the  committee  sys- 
tem. For  deep  historic  reasons  equality  was  in- 
sisted upon  as  between  town  and  town,  State  and 
State,  when  it  came  to  the  constitution  and  pro- 
cedure of  Provincial  and  Continental  legislatures. 


32  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Also  the  small  populations  with  which  New  World 
history  began  necessitated  a  return  to  more  primi- 
tive practice,  —  an  involution,  as  it  were,  in  com- 
mitteeship. As  absurd  is  it  for  an  immigrant  just 
arrived,  say  in  1629,  at  Plymouth,  to  seek  in  the 
giant  woods  for  London's  ancient  towers,  as  to 
look  for  a  governmental  organization  in  any  de- 
gree approaching  political  developments  in  the 
homeland  of  hedgerows  whence  he  comes.  The 
numbers  of  the  individuals,  of  the  families,  of  the 
tribes,  or  of  the  states  of  which  it  is  composed,  is 
highly  important  in  determining  the  simplicity  or 
complexity  of  a  political  system.  Therefore  the 
functions  of  the  American  committee,  like  those 
of  all  American  institutions,  had  to  unfold  gradu- 
ally, along  with  the  natural  growth  from  the  small 
territory  and  the  small  company  which  needed  only 
elementary  political  contrivances,  to  the  larger 
state  in  which  representative  government  was 
demanded;  and  when  representative  government 
came,  colonial  and  intercolonial,  it  took  a  place  in 
legislatures  which  was  in  some  respects  nearer  to 
that  of  the  early,  than  to  that  of  the  contemporary, 
committee  in  the  English  Commons. 

The  Continental  Congresses,  from  1774  to  1789, 
began  a  combination  of  the  highly  various  prac- 
tices which  make  up  the  background  of  our  study. 
In  small  bodies,  such  as  they  were,  with  their  en- 
tire memberships  hardly  as  large  as  some  of  the 


ORIGINS  AND  ANTECEDENTS.  33 

important  committees  of  the  British  House,  un- 
wieldiness  did  not  so  much  require  commitment. 
In  the  beginnings  of  the  central  government,  duties 
and  powers  which  it  could  draw  from  the  jealous 
local  organs  were  limited,  and  hence  the  need  of 
a  division  of  labors  in  order  to  carry  heavier  bur- 
dens was  little  felt.  Because  of  these  same  local 
feelings,  committees  were  either  large  or  small  as 
compared  in  size  with  the  body  creating  them.  It 
grudgingly  gave  them  a  share  in  its  work,  retain- 
ing to  itself  tin*  larger  part;  for  the  same  suspi- 
cious feelings  tow  aid  delegated  power  which,  under 
the  time-spirit,  the  citizen  held  towards  the  repre- 
sentative, the  representative  held  towards  the  com- 
mitteeman. On  the  whole,  the  committee,  with 
its  small  sphere,  had  nothing  to  lose  and  every- 
thing to  gain  from  the  evolution  that  must  come 
with  increase  of  population,  and  consequent  in- 
crease of  numbers  in  the  representative  bodies,  with 
increase  of  importance  in  common  interests  of  the 
entire  country,  and  consequent  increase  of  busi- 
ness in  the  central  government. 


THE    HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTATIVES. 


Blessed  be  the  memory  of  the  man  who  invented  the  Yeas  and 
Nays. 

Horace  Greeley. 


There  are  those  here  to-day  on  this  floor,  who,  with  grave  rea- 
sons to  support  their  demands,  are  clamoring  for  a  member  from 
every  State  upon  the  great  Committees  of  Appropriations,  of  Ways 
and  Means,  and  of  Commerce. 

J.  C.  S.  Blackburn. 


In  publicity  consists  the  bond  between  society  and  its  govern- 
ment. Looking,  however,  at  facts,  we  find  that  of  the  elements 
essential  to  a  representative  government,  this  is  the  last  which  is 
introduced  and  gains  a  firm  footing. 

M.  Guizot. 


CHAPTER   II. 

THE  PUBLIC  AND  THE  COMMITTEE. 

Not  enough  study  has  been  given  to  the  meth- 
ods of  our  legislatures  with  a  view  to  discovering 
the  principles  which  have  underlain  their  unfold- 
ing history,  and  the  lines  along  which  they  may 
and  probably  will  yet  develop.  From  a  small  series 
of  simple  resolutions  compiled  within  four  days, 
the  rules  of  the  national  House  of  Representatives 
have  grown  into  an  intricate,  logically  arranged 
code,  shaped  during  a  century  by  conflict  and  co- 
operation among  a  multitude  of  minds  and  wills. 
They  have  not  been  readily  understood,  because 
they  are  unique  as  compared  with  other  bodies  of 
law,  ancient  and  modern.  In  their  earlier  history 
they  accumulated  one  by  one,  and  very  gradually, 
until  at  the  time  of  the  civil  war  they  were  occu- 
pying some  twenty  pages  as  appendices  of  the 
journals.  Curiously  enough,  they  were  exten- 
sively revised  just  at  the  moment  when  the  Gov- 
ernment seemed  to  be  going  to  pieces.1      Then 

1  The  revision  of  1860  consisted  mainly  of  modifications  re- 
ported Dec.  20,  1858,  by  the  Committee  on  Rules  upon  which  the 
Speaker  served  for  the  first  time  as  committeeman. 

37 


38  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

the  busy,  active  years  followed,  the  most  impor- 
tant the  House  had  ever  known,  and  there  was  no 
time  to  think  of  better  devices.  But  the  marvel- 
lous changes  and  expansion  of  the  central  govern- 
ment with  and  after  the  Union  triumph  were  too 
heavy  a  burden  for  the  cumbersome  organization 
of  slower  days.  Desperate  because  of  its  inability 
to  make  them  work,  the  House  in  1879  instructed 
a  committee  of  its  most  skillful  parliamentarians 
to  sit  during  the  recess  for  the  purpose,  to  use  its 
own  words,  of  revising,  codifying,  and  simplifying 
the  clumsy  accretion  of  one  hundred  and  sixty-six 
rules  under  which  it  was  suffering.  Samuel  J. 
Randall,  Joseph  C.  S.  Blackburn,  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  James  A.  Garfield,  and  William  P.  Frye 
performed  the  service.  Their  report  states  that 
"the  objective  point  with  the  committee  was  to 
secure  accuracy  in  business,  economy  of  time, 
order,  uniformity,  and  impartiality."  To  this  end 
the  arrangement  and  grouping,  with  forty-five  main 
rules  subdivided  into  clauses,  was  made  upon  a 
basis  of  the  logical  relation  between  subject  and 
subject.1  No  change  was  proposed  to  which  all 
five  were  not  agreed.  From  time  to  time  for  two 
months  the  House  debated  and  amended  the  new 
code  in  great  detail  until  its  final  adoption.  This 
was  a  labor  brilliant  and  far-reaching.  It  was  in 
direct  line  of  succession  to  the  work  of  the  con- 

i  46:  1,  C.  R.,  Jan.  6,  1880. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.         39 

vention  which  framed  the  Federal  Constitution  in 
1787.  As  concerns  the  House,  the  discussion  to 
which  it  gave  rise  may  be  called  an  important 
supplement  to  the  Federalist.  But  correction  did 
not  cease  with  that  Congress.  On  the  contrary,  a 
strong  impulse  to  progress  was  given,  so  that  since 
then  there  have  been  important  biennial  revisions. 
Debate  upon  the  subject  occupied  a  week  in  1893. 
Regulations  as  old  as  the  House  itself  have  been 
swept  away.  Now,  the  import  of  this  rapid  pro- 
cess of  change  deserves  emphasis  as  regards  the 
committees.  No  static  view  can  be  adequate. 
One  year  the  onlooker  has  been  impressed  with 
their  weakness ;  another,  with  their  power.  The 
masterly  portraits  of  a  few  years  ago  now  have  a 
tinge  of  antiquity. 

While  the  Government  was  yet  very  young,  two 
ancient  Massachusetts  gentlemen  fell  into  a  con- 
troversy about  the  House  rules,  wherein  one  of 
them  threw  off  an  eloquent  declaration  that  select 
committees  were  "like  the  senses  to  the  soul;" 
and  the  other  sarcastically  rejoined,  "  What,  can 
we  neither  see,  hear,  smell,  nor  feel  without  we 
employ  a  committee  for  the  purpose  ?  "  A  seance 
with  these  venerable  statesmen  ought  to  develop 
further  light  concerning  the  physiology  and  psy- 
chology of  the  body  politic.  They  might  explain 
fully  and  at  length  whether  committee  functions 
are  motor  or  sensory,  or  both ;  whether  it  is  proper 


40  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

to  call  the  government  the  soul,  and  the  masses 
who  are  governed  the  body,  or  to  call  the  public 
servants  the  body,  and  the  sovereign  people  the 
soul.  Later  Congressional  debaters  have  worn 
their  simile  threadbare.  Whatever  their  enlarged 
argument  would  be,  the  brief  explanation  pre- 
served to  us  makes  it  clear  that  committees  are 
the  agents,  the  instruments,  the  channels  of  con- 
nection between  Congress  and  the  nation. 

A  Georgia  Representative  recently  struck  out 
on  a  new  line  of  sentiment.  He  confessed  that  he 
had  been  trying  to  read  in  the  names  of  the  House 
committees  the  history  of  our  government.  Who- 
ever glances  over  their  list  must  be  impressed  with 
the  thought.  Their  number  and  their  relations 
are  largely  to  be  accounted  for  by  the  remarkable 
diversity  of  interests  in  the  United  States,  a  land 
of  many  climes  and  of  vast  areas  adapted  to  all 
the  different  pursuits  of  men.  To  make  the  story 
complete,  the  select  committees  of  half  a  hundred 
Congresses  must  also  be  marshaled  in  review ;  for 
they  will  recall  passing  events  which  have  stirred 
the  nation  for  a  moment,  and  then  passed  into  the 
category  of  the  forgotten. 

The  creation  of  a  standing  committee  has  gen- 
erally been  linked  with  some  important  historical 
occurrence.  Louisiana  was  purchased  in  1803 ; 
the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  came  in  1805.  In 
response  to  the  guns  of  the  Leopard  firing  upon 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        41 

the  Chesapeake  sprang  into  existence  the  Commit- 
tee on  Foreign  Affairs.  Engraving  came  to  be  a 
permanent  member  of  the  committee  family  when 
the  Mexican  War  and  the  stirring  argosies  of  '49 
called  for  more  extensive  service  of  cartographers. 
In  1867  the  establishment  of  the  Committee  on 
Education  and  Labor  at  the  instance  of  James  A. 
Garfield,  one-time  Ohio  tow-path  lad  and  school- 
master, was  significant  of  the  downfall  of  slavery 
in  the  United  States.1 

Just  as  a  more  rapid  increase  in  the  population 
of  the  country  has  signalized  the  return  of  peace 
after  war  and  the  exceptional  periods  of  prosper- 
ity, so  with  additions  to  the  list  of  standing  com- 
mittees. The  first  administration  of  Madison  saw 
none  created,  but  thirteen  standing  committees 
began  during  Monroe's  Era  of  Good  Feeling.  In 
the  quarter  of  a  century  from  1838  to  18G3,  three, 
all  of  them  routine,  on  Library,  on  Printing,  and 
on  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  the  Inte- 
rior, were  the  only  new  ones  to  put  in  appearance.2 
The  equal  period  from  1863  to  1885  brought  eleven 
into  full  fledge,  including  the  more  important  for 
finance,  industry,  and  social  affairs ;  while  four 
select  committees  took  their  rise  and  were  revived 
regularly  at  the  beginning  of  every  Congress,  be- 

1  Efforts  on  behalf  of  such  a  committee  had  always  in  ante 
helium  Congresses  met  with  quick  and  angry  opposition  from  the 
dominant  Southerners.    21 : 1,  C.  A.,  Dec.  1G,  1829. 

2  A  standing  Committee  on  Rules  lasted  from  1849  to  1853. 


42  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

ing  finally,  in  1893,  transferred  to  the  standing 
list.1 

The  waxing  and  the  waning  of  committees  and 
their  struggles  among  themselves  reflect  the  changes 
which  are  going  on  in  national  life.  From  their 
composition  one  knows  whether  the  Philistines  of 
Silver  or  the  Israelites  of  Gold  prevail  in  the  Amer- 
ican Canaan.  The  glory  of  certain  of  them  is  but 
for  the  passing  hour;  the  importance  of  others  is 
constant,  because  from  the  nature  of  the  subjects 
confided  to  them  their  duties  are  continuous  and 
unvarying.  When  the  nation  is  fighting,  the  War 
and  Naval  Committees  and  the  Ways  and  Means 
are  a  ruling  triumvirate;  in  peace  these  become 
pack-horses  for  public  improvement  committees 
and  the  Appropriations.  If  Captain  Grant  is  haul- 
ing cordwood  into  St.  Louis  or  buying  hides  in 
Galena,  the  Military  Affairs  at  Washington  is  lean- 
ing back  in  its  chairs  with  hands  in  pockets,  to 
what  heights  will  not  Appomattox  see  both  cap- 
tain and  committeemen  advanced! 

Members  have  become  prominent  in  the  House, 
who,  fathoming  the  currents  of  public  interests, 
have  sought  through  the  Speaker  membership  upon 
committees  to  which  issues  of  coming  importance 

1  Namely,  Reform  in  the  Civil  Service ;  Election  of  President, 
Vice-President,  and  Representatives  (Produced  by  the  Hayes- 
Tilden  contest);  Ventilation  and  Acoustics;  Alcoholic  Liquor 
Traffic.  A  sixteenth  was  the  Committee  on  Freedmen's  Affairs, 
1866  to  1875. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        43 

are  to  be  intrusted.  Thus  did  Stephen  A.  Doug- 
las seek  membership  on  the  Committee  on  Terri- 
tories in  the  Kansas-Nebraska  Question;  thus  did 
James  A.  Garfield  gain  increased  distinction  in  turn- 
ing at  the  close  of  the  Civil  War  from  Military 
Affairs  to  Ways  and  Means.  One  of  the  older  com- 
mittees has  stood  throughout  the  century  without 
undergoing  the  expansion  which  has  come,  for  in- 
stance, to  the  Elections  and  the  Claims ;  if  changes 
of  long-standing  policy  involve  the  United  States 
in  the  intricacies  of  world-wide  politics,  this  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs  may  in  the  whirl  of  in- 
creasing business  also  be  found  to  throw  off  the 
planets  of  a  new  group.1 

Invectives  have  been  launched  against  the  com- 
mittees for  their  failures  to  report  upon  such  ques- 
tions as  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of 
Columbia  and  the  promotion  of  temperance,  though 
petitions  in  behalf  of  these  reforms  have  fairly 
poured  into  their  rooms ;  back  of  them,  however, 
has  usually  been  a  House  using  the  device  of  refer- 
ence as  a  mild  rejection,  a  quieting  of  conscience, 
a  skillful  allaying  of  agitation;  and  back  of  the 
House  has  been  a  public  sentiment  upon  these  sub- 
jects hostile,  cowardly,  unaroused,  or  indifferent. 
The  superficial  glance  would  have  the  committee 
a  trident-bearing  shell  that  masters  and  rules  the 

1  Note  its  prominence  in  the  excitement  over  the  Venezuela 
and  Cuhan  Questions,  1895-1896. 


44  Congressional  committees. 

waves  ;  the  deeper  view  sees  in  it  a  drifting  vessel 
tossed  upon  the  heaving  seas  of  public  opinion. 

The  practical  relations  of  an  American  and  his 
committees  may  be  studied  from  the  standpoints 
of  his  influence,  first,  in  determining  their  composi- 
tion, and  second,  in  directing  their  action.  In  the 
foregoing  chapter  are  notices  of  the  organization 
of  committees  upon  a  territorial  plan.  For  conve- 
nience it  may  be  called  State  Representation.  In 
the  later  ante-constitutional  times  a  grand  com- 
mittee was  understood  to  be  a  committee  upon 
which  each  and  every  colony,  or  county,  as  the 
case  might  be,  had  one  member.  The  national 
House  of  Representatives,  upon  its  convening  in 
1789,  clung  to  this  principle.  Its  first  committee 
represented  the  eleven  States  that  had  entered  the 
Union.1  By  one  of  the  same  size  and  character 
the  three  executive  departments  were  planned,  and 
by  another  a  bill  was  presented  fixing  the  salaries 
of  the  President,  Vice-President,  and  Congress- 
men. Among  other  important  subjects  demand- 
ing State  representation  in  the  early  Congresses 
were  Fortifications,  Debarred  Claims,  the  Print- 
ing of  the  Laws,  the  State  of  the  Treasury  De- 
partment, a  Road  between  the  Southern  and  the 
Eastern  States.  The  standing  Committee  on  Post- 
Offices  and  Post-Roads,  during  its  first  four  years, 
1806-1810,  had  a  membership  of  one  from  each  of 

i  1:1,  C.  A.,  April  2,  1789. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        45 

the  seventeen  States.  A  proposed  abolishment  of 
West  Point  Academy  was  referred  by  the  Twenty- 
third  Congress  to  twenty-four  members,  as  also 
the  Pay,  Mileage,  and  Contingent  Expenses  of  the 
House.  Such  committees  played  a  prominent  part 
for  adjusting  disputes  between  the  free  and  the 
slave  sections.  One  of  them  considered  Missouri's 
troublesome  Constitution  in  1821.1  Thirteen,  the 
old  number  of  the  original  States,  reappeared  in  a 
committee  on  the  veto  of  the  tariff  bill,  Aug.  11, 
1842;  and  again,  when  the  noted  Omnibus  Bill  of 
1850  was  referred  to  a  group  of  brilliant  men,  six 
of  the  North  and  six  of  the  South,  with  Henry 
Clay  as  chairman  ;  and  again,  alas,  at  the  out- 
break of  the  Civil  War,  when  to  thirteen  Senators 
and  thirty-three  Representatives  was  assigned  "the 
present  perilous  condition  of  the  country."  2  Six- 
teen men  of  the  House  were  of  the  joint  committee 
to  take  action  upon  the  death  of  Washington.  To 
ceremonial  committees  the  principle  has  latterly 
been  confined.  The  four  Presidents  who  died  in 
office  were  so  honored.  Both  Senate  and  House 
followed  the  plan  upon  the  reception  of  Lafayette 
in  1824,  and  upon  his  demise  ten  years  later. 
Every  State  and  Territory  had  a  representative  or 
delegate  in  the  escort  which  accompanied  the  re- 

1  Schouler's  "  History  of  the  United  States,"  III.  184,  185. 

2  Blaine's  "Twenty  Years  in  Congress,"  I.  108,  note;  von 
Hoist's  "Constitutional  History  of  the  United  States,"  VII.  354 
et  seqq. 


46  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

mains  of  John  Quincy  Adams  to  Massachusetts. 
Similarly  celebrations  pertaining  to  the  early  history 
of  the  Republic  have  been  observed,  the  centen- 
nials of  Washington's  Birthday,  of  the  Declaration 
of  Independence,  of  Cornwallis's  Surrender. 

The  idea  is  prominent  where  —  in  the  House, 
though  not  in  the  Senate  —  prospective  States  of 
Western  regions,  each  through  its  delegate,  have 
participated  in  committee  work.  As  early  as  1817 
the  delegate  from  Missouri  was  made  chairman  of 
a  select  committee  on  the  admission  of  his  Territory 
to  the  Union.  A  rule  of  Dec.  13,  1871,  empow- 
ered the  Speaker  to  appoint  one  of  the  Westerners 
for  the  Committee  on  Territories,  and  the  delegate 
from  the  District  of  Columbia  upon  the  Committee 
on  the  District.  Sharp  objection,  involving  the 
constitutionality  of  admitting  other  than  members 
of  Congress  to  a  direct  part  in  law-making,  de- 
veloped at  this  time,  as  had  been  the  case  early  in 
the  century,  when  delegates  were  first  given  seats 
upon  the  floor.  Upon  this  score,  however,  the 
conferring  of  the  right  to  vote  would  seem  to  be 
the  only  limit.  Five  years  later  three  others  were 
assigned  to  the  Indian  Affairs,  the  Mines  and  Min- 
ing, and  the  Public  Lands.  At  this  time  (1896) 
the  Territories  has  two,  and  eight  other  commit- 
tees have  each  one  delegate. 

Like  the  plan  of  adding  a  stripe  to  the  na- 
tional flag  for  each  new  State  admitted,  State  rep- 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        47 

resen tation  became  too  unwieldy.  Robert  Goodloe 
Harper  gave  the  signal  for  its  abandonment  by 
persuading  the  House  in  1798  to  reduce  the  Ways 
and  Means  from  sixteen  to  nine  members.  But  it 
has  not  been  simply  a  surviving  colonial  custom ; 
it  finds  an  enduring  basis  in  the  Constitution. 
Though  almost  from  the  beginning  membership  of 
every  State  upon  a  committee  became  impracti- 
cable, from  the  very  earliest  times  the  practice  has 
obtained,  as  far  as  possible,  of  appointing  upon  a 
committee  no  two  members  from  the  same  State. 
Notwithstanding  the  insistence  of  some  Congress- 
men that  ability,  not  locality,  should  be  the  su- 
preme test,  and  notwithstanding  marked  decline 
in  the  importance  of  State  lines,  State  representa- 
tion in  this  modified  form  has  constantly  prevailed. 
Any  violation  of  its  spirit,  casual  or  intentional, 
gives  rise  on  the  floor  of  Congress  to  disturbance 
and  complaint.  The  Fifty-third  Congress,  with  its 
territorial  basis  of  parties,  and  its  range  of  from  one 
up  to  thirty-four  in  the  number  of  members  from 
the  different  Commonwealths,  showed  no  State 
with  more  than  three  on  any  committee,  and  but 
one  committee  with  as  high  a  disparity  as  four  be- 
tween the  number  of  States  for  which  it  stood  and 
its  total  membership.  Local  jealousy  is  a  prime 
cause  of  the  constant  increase  in  the  sizes  of  com- 
mittees, of  the  fact  that  the  more  important  are 
the  larger,  and  of  the  vigorous  and  generally  sue- 


48  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

cessful  attempts  to  add  to  the  numbers  of  one 
which  begins  to  emerge  from  obscurity,  or  to  tower 
above  its  fellows.  State  pride  is  a  very  real  force 
in  banding  the  various  delegations  together.  A 
new  member,  entering  Congress,  turns  to  an  older 
colleague,  with  whom,  probably,  he  has  had  pre- 
vious association  in  home  politics.  Fortunate  the 
young  man  who  thus  finds  powerful  elderly  friends 
to  help  him  to  choice  committee  positions,  and  to 
speak  a  good  word  for  his  bills  in  the  ear  of  the 
Speaker  or  of  the  House.  Horace  Greeley  noted 
the  leadership  of  States  for  the  control  of  legis- 
lation during  his  brief  service  in  Congress,  put- 
ting Massachusetts  first  and  Ohio  second.1  Maine, 
Illinois,  and  Iowa  seem  to  have  combined  to  rule 
the  Fifty-fourth  and  Fifty-fifth  Congresses. 

State  representation  is  certainly  a  considerable 
limitation  upon  the  appointing,  as  well  as  upon 
the  other  powers  of  the  Speaker.  A  disturbing 
element  has  been  that  officer's  display  of  local  bias 
in  making  up  the  committees.  In  1861  Galusha 
A.  Grow  of  Pennsylvania  was  charged  by  West- 
erners with  partiality  to  Easterners.  A  member 
from  Iowa  recently  cast  such  reflections  upon  a 
Speaker  from  Georgia;  the  South,  he  declared, 
had  thirty-three  of  the  fifty-five  chairmen. 

The  much-abused  Speaker  has  been  bound  by 
the  dividing  and  splitting  of  parties  upon  consid- 

i  Greeley's  "Recollections,"  226. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        49 

erations  of  sectional  interest.1  The  slavery  issue 
before  the  Civil  War,  and  the  closely  correlated 
questions  of  internal  improvements  and  the  tariff 
after  its  close,  are  the  most  prominent  illustra- 
tions. It  has  been  coast  versus  inland  States.  The 
woodsman's  ax,  blazing  westward  the  national 
highways,  has  echoed  the  border  Congressman's 
lusty  clamor  for  admission  to  the  committee  arcana. 
Day  before  yesterday  it  was  Illinois,  yesterday 
it  was  Washington  ;  but  to-day,  —  can  it  be  ?  are 
the  "  original  thirteen  "  beginning  to  plead?  When 
the  location  of  the  World's  Fair  was  about  to  be 
decided,  three  cities  discovered  that  the  fourth 
had  eight  representatives  on  the  committee  which 
was  to  report  upon  the  subject,  while  their  own 
combined  minorities  counted  but  five ;  there  was 
an  immediate  recommitment  to  another  set  of  men, 
two  for  each  contestant,  with  an  impartial  chair- 
man from  Massachusetts.  The  new  sectional  party 
which  has  its  strongest  following  beyond  the  Mis- 
sissippi, together  with  members  of  the  older  parties 
from  that  region,  now  revives  on  the  floor  of  Con- 
gress those  sentiments  which  were  in  the  air  when 
Jefferson's  followers  came  up  to  possess  the  seats 
of  those  whom  they  called  monarchists.  Their 
slogan  is,  "  The  West  never  gets  justice."  They 
complain  that  a  single  small  Atlantic  State  often 
appropriates  the  chief  places  in  each  of  the  four 

1  Wilson's  "  Congressional  Government,"  107. 


50  COJSTGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

or  five  foremost  committees,  while  from  Lake  Su- 
perior to  the  Pacific  there  may  be  no  more  than 
three  chairmanships.  Never  save  once,  say  they, 
has  a  member  of  the  Rules  come  from  beyond  the 
Father  of  Waters  ;  and  there  is  "  no  representa- 
tion "  upon  the  Appropriations  and  the  Ways  and 
Means  for  ten  populous  Western  Commonwealths. 
They  ask  for  each  State  and  Territory  at  least  one 
chairman,  and  for  the  House  as  a  whole  a  chance 
to  veto  such  appointments  of  the  Speaker  as  do 
not  meet  its  approval.  Men  of  the  East  reply, 
"You  have  not  a  membership  in  this  House  to 
justify  your  extravagant  claims."  It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  the  lower  branch  of  Congress, 
unlike  the  Senate,  is  based  upon  numerically  equal 
parts  of  the  country's  entire  population.  Accord- 
ingly, a  fair  allotment  of  committee  places  gives 
New  York  thirty-four,  to  one  for  Washington.  As 
a  result  the  former  State  is  represented  on  some 
thirty  committees,  having  in  charge  as  many  dif- 
ferent national  interests,  while  the  latter,  the  most 
humid  part  of  the  United  States,  may  get  a  place 
on  the  Irrigation  and  Arid  Lands.  Largely  be- 
cause of  the  differences  in  the  importance  of  com- 
mittees, and  of  the  fact  that  there  are  some  three 
hundred  more  committee  places  than  there  are 
members,  States  do  not  always  get  equitable  voices 
in  committee  business.  When  the  majority  of  the 
Congressmen  from  a  so-called  doubtful  State  finds 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        51 

itself  in  a  House  minority,  it  would  appear  to  get 
particularly  cold  treatment  in  the  committee  lists. 
State  inequalities  as  concerns  chairmen  are  es- 
pecially prominent,  for  the  reason  that  those  impor- 
tant functionaries  come  all  from  the  same  party. 
Upon  this  head  the  Fiftieth,  which  had  a  small 
preponderance  of  Democrats,  may  be  fairly  com- 
pared with  the  Fifty-first  Congress,  in  which  the 
Republicans  had  a  bare  majority.  On  a  basis 
solely  of  population,  Maine  would  be  entitled  to 
one  chairman,  Kentucky  to  two;  at  the  Fiftieth 
Congress  Kentucky  had  four,  Maine,  none ;  at 
the  Fifty-first,  Kentucky  had  none,  Maine,  three. 
Maine's  delegation  of  four  was  solidly  Republican ; 
Kentucky,  out  of  eleven,  had  in  the  first  instance 
eight,  in  the  second,  nine  Democrats.  Yet  even 
in  cases  in  which  States  were  of  the  same  party, 
differences  were  considerable.  Thus  when  the 
Democrats  were  in  power,  Kentucky,  with  eight 
of  that  party,  had  four  chairmen ;  Tennessee,  with 
eight,  two  ;  North  Carolina  and  Mississippi,  with 
seven  each,  each  one.  At  the  next  Congress,  Cali- 
fornia, with  four,  had  none  ;  Indiana  with  five,  and 
Massachusetts  with  ten  Republicans,  each  had  one, 
while  Maine  had  three  chairmen.  A  lion's  share 
would  seem  to  fall  in  manifold  sense  to  that  State 
which  secures  the  Speakership.  Favoritism  aside, 
both  the  higher  and  the  secondary  dignities  come 
to  it  as  rewards  for  the  same  set  of  qualities,  of 


52  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

which  conservatism  in  retaining  its  men  is  chief. 
More  than  a  score  of  years  after  the  Civil  War, 
the  issues  of  that  titanic  strife  are  yet  so  live  that 
of  fifty-four  committee  chairmen  all  but  four  in  one 
Congress  came  from  north,  and  all  but  nineteen 
in  another  from  south,  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  Line. 
Forty-five  of  these  miniature  speakers,  together 
with  the  Speaker  of  speakers,  represented  in  one 
case  a  territory  confined  to  the  latitudes  of  New 
York  on  the  north  and  Pennsylvania  on  the  south, 
to  the  longitudes  of  Maine  on  the  east  and  Iowa 
on  the  west,  —  about  one-half  of  the  people  and 
one-sixth  of  the  area  of  the  United  States.  It  is 
certainly  to  the  advantage  of  the  South  and  West 
to  insist  upon  State  representation. 

Thus  far  the  rural  regions  have  held  their  own. 
If  occasionally  in  a  Democratic  Congress  New 
York  gets  the  chairmanship  of  a  committee  on  Ex- 
penditures in  one  of  the  Departments,  Americus 
may  boast  the  headship  of  Elections;  Corsicana, 
of  Ways  and  Means  ;  Farmington,  of  Interstate 
and  Foreign  Commerce-.  Under  a  Republican  re- 
gime, that  of  1889-1891,  the  sixty-eight  most  pop- 
ulous cities  of  the  nation  had  one  member  of  the 
Rivers  and  Harbors  and  two  of  the  Banking  and 
Currency.  The  two  Congresses  above  compared, 
each  showed  in  the  total  of  their  four  great 
finance  committees  a  majority  of  ten  for  places 
of  less  than  twenty  thousand  inhabitants.     Under 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        53 

the  Republicans  Philadelphia  was  the  only  one  of 
the  ten  busiest  centers  of  trade  that  held  a  chair- 
manship ;  one  of  her  Representatives  was  head  of 
the  Post-Offices  and  Post-Roads,  another  of  the 
Library.  The  Democrats  granted  the  leading  place 
upon  the  Appropriations  to  Philadelphia,  upon  the 
Labor  to  Saint  Louis,  upon  the  Pensions  to  Brook- 
lyn, upon  the  Expenditures  in  the  State  Depart- 
ment to  Boston,  upon  the  Expenditures  on  Public 
Buildings  to  New  York.  No  wonder  that  money 
needed  for  harbors  and  quays  where  the  ships  of 
the  world  ride  has  frequently  been  squandered 
upon  some  petty  rivulet  of  a  Kiskiminetas,  or  that 
occasionally  a  Congress  adjourns  without  taking 
a  plain  opportunity  of  reducing  the  interest  upon 
the  government  debt  by  millions  of  dollars.  Nor 
is  it  altogether  strange  if  capitalists  and  corpora- 
tions have  sometimes  bought  protection  for  rights 
which  their  Congressmen  have  been  powerless  to 
protect  in  the  course  of  honest  legislation.  How- 
ever, with  a  dozen  different  States,  with  rural 
and  urban  communities,  with  both  political  parties 
represented  to  some  extent  upon  a  large  com- 
mittee, the  common  weal,  the  greatest  good  to  the 
greatest  number,  does  not  altogether  fail.  The 
majority  and  minority  proportions  of  a  commit- 
tee's membership  are  ascertained  and  assigned  with 
arithmetical  exactness ;  i.e.,  the  total  House  mem- 
bership   is   to   the   House   minority  as   the   total 


54  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

committee  membership  is  to  the  committee's  mi- 
nority. 

There  is  a  question  which  seems  worthy  of 
thought  on  the  part  of  those  who  desire  to  see  the 
high  representative  principle  of  equality  preserved 
and  perfected  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 
Ought  the  man  who  wields  the  vast  power  of  the 
Speaker,  whose  office  has  mounted  in  importance 
far  above  the  Vice-Presidency,  so  far  by  the  esti- 
mate of  keen  observers  as  to  even  rival  the  Presi- 
dency, —  ought  he  to  be  chosen  by  a  small  fraction 
of  the  people,  the  majority  of  a  Congressional  con- 
stituency? True,  secondarily,  by  the  majority  of 
their  representatives,  a  majority  of  the  people  of 
the  entire  country  confer  the  office.  Yet  certain 
disadvantages  and  abuses  of  present  legislative 
methods  would  doubtless  disappear,  were  the  direct 
national  voice  brought  biennially  to  bear,  just  as 
it  decides  every  four  years  who  shall  be  Chief 
Magistrate.  Do  not  the  arguments  for  choice  of 
United  States  Senators  without  the  intermediation 
of  State  legislatures  apply  also  in  the  case  of  this 
more  important  trust?  Our  Speaker,  it  is  well 
known,  finds  his  archetypes  first  in  the  ancient  pre- 
siding officer  of  the  British  Commons,  and  second 
in  those  of  the  State  legislatures  which  existed  in 
1789.  No  discussion  or  difference  as  to  the  mode 
of  selecting  the  Speaker  has  been  recorded  of  the 
convention   that   framed   the    Constitution.     The 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        55 

old  parliamentary  privilege,  as  wrested  from  the 
monarch,  was  confirmed  in  our  fundamental  law. 
How  unforeseen  were  the  developments  which  fol- 
lowed !  What  a  wide  difference  between  the  power 
of  Muhlenberg  and  the  power  of  Reed !  In  the 
House  of  Commons  to-day  sit  the  Speaker  and  the 
Prime  Minister;  our  Speaker  is  premier  and  par- 
liamentarian in  one,  but  it  does  not  take  a  moment 
to  decide  that  the  former  far  outshadows  the  latter 
function.1  A  clerk  deeply  versed  in  parliamentary 
precedents  stands  constantly  at  his  elbow  unravel- 
ing for  him  all  the  purely  legal  tangles  that  occur. 
The  man  who  shapes  great  committees  which  shape 
national  legislation,  who  as  chief  of  the  Committee 
on  Rules  decides  what  business  shall  be  presented 
to  the  House,  who  controls  the  floor  in  favor  of 
what  individual  member  or  business  interest  or 
political  faction  he  pleases,  —  this  man  ought  to 
be  vested  with  these  important  duties  by  a  vote 
at  large  of  the  nation's  entire  citizenship.  Then 
his  course  of  action  will  more  surely  reflect  high 
political  qualities,  general  rather  than  special  in- 
terests, the  wisdom  of  the  foremost  counselors  of 
his  party,  sensitiveness  to  popular  opinion  as  to 
"a  strong  wind  blowing  aft."2 

1  Essay  on  the  Speaker  as  Premier  in  A.  B.  Hart's  "  Practical 
Essays  on  American  Government;  "  Miss  M.  P.  Follett's  "The 
Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives." 

2  Having  penned  these^uggestions  as  to  the  choice  of  a  Speaker, 
the  writer  afterwards  happened  upon  an  advocate  of  popular 


56  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

The  committees  having  been  appointed,  the  ques- 
tion of  influence  of  public  opinion  upon  their  pro- 
ceedings presents  itself.  "  Publicity  is  perhaps  the 
most  essential  characteristic  of  representative  gov- 
ernment," says  Guizot.  Upon  this  spot  of  the  com- 
mittee structure  critical  Napoleons  have  trained 
their  guns.  They  have  been  outside  the  lines  seek- 
ing to  demolish,  not  inside,  working  to  strengthen 
the  weak  places.  The  charge  has  been  that  the 
secrecy  which  veils  committee  sessions  is  fraught 
with  the  gravest  dangers.  Bribery  has  slipped  in 
through  the  hidden  entrances  of  these  Star  Cham- 
bers. The  great  railway  has  laid  down  upon  their 
tables  shares  of  its  stock  as  gift  offerings,  and  the 
uncouth  backwoodsman  has  proved  his  gratitude  to 
the  committeeman  by  a  promissory  note  for  a  snug 
little  sum.1  These  transactions,  occasionally  com- 
ing to  light,  have  beclouded  the  confidence  of  the 
people.  Even  where  there  is  no  real  basis  for  sus- 
picions of  wrong-doing,  the  unfathomable  mystery 
that  hangs  around  the  inner  working-places  of  Con- 
gress does  injustice  to  the  honest  Congressman, 
who,  without  chance  for  refutation,  sees  his  purest 
motives  maligned,  his  most  disinterested  acts  as- 
cribed to  selfishness.     For  this  cause  men  who  care 

election,  Mr.  Raymond  L.  Bridgman,  in  the  New  England  Maga- 
zine for  November,  1894.  Alleged  corrupt  influences  in  the  Massa- 
chusetts legislature  are  part  of  his  argument. 

1  An  early  example  of  the  latter  ki#d  is  detailed  in  15: 1,  C. 
A.,  Jan.  7,  1818. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        57 

for  their  good  names  stand  off  from  such  situa- 
tions, but  the  unscrupulous  lurk  in  the  darkened 
recesses.1  The  people  have  been  in  despair  of 
right  judgment  when  the  election  day  has  come. 
In  profound  distrust  they  have  felt  that  they  must 
strike,  though  it  be  blindly.  But  one  course  is  left 
open,  because  of  their  inability  to  know  and  to 
understand.  To  toss  overboard  whoever  may  be 
the  rascals,  they  must  sweep  the  decks  clean  with 
a  tidal  wave.  They  have  faintly  hoped  that  a 
new  party  coming  into  power  will  uncover  the 
evil  deeds  of  its  predecessor.  It  is  government 
by  "  see-saw  ;  "  one  party  down,  the  other  up  ;  one 
party  up,  the  other  down.  It  is  a  modern  sover- 
ign  applying  old  William  the  Norman's  Law  of 
Englishry. 

Secrecy,  however,  has  not  been  such  an  enormity 
as  it  would  seem  at  first  glance  to  have  been,  and 
becomes  less  of  an  evil,  for  a  number  of  causes 
which  are  bearing  upon  it  more  and  more  as  time 
passes.  "Certainly  in  no  generation  has  there 
been  such  a  powerful  Drummond  light  turned 
upon  the  lives  of  public  men  as  now,"  writes  Sen- 
ator Hoar.  The  preceding  chapter  showed  what 
urgent  reasons  required  secrecy  in  old  times,  when 
monarchs,  not  legislatures,  governed  the  nations. 
This  was  the  prime  source   of  that  rule  of  non- 

1  "The  Decline  of  Legislatures,"  by  E.  L.  Godkin,  Atlantic 
Monthly,  July,  1897,  p.  42. 


58  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

publicity  which  Jefferson  copied.  In  the  last  cen- 
tury visitors  were  first  admitted  to  the  House  of 
Commons,  and  even  yet  the  heavy  penalties  against 
intruding  outsiders  stand  unrepealed,  while  a  sin- 
gle member  can  compel  the  clearing  of  the  galleries. 
A  distinguished  English  writer  complains  that  in 
our  time  "  an  English  bill  begins  in  petty  rivulets 
or  stagnant  pools.  Then  it  runs  under  ground  for 
most  of  its  course,  withdrawn  from  the  eye  by  the  se- 
crecy of  the  Cabinet."1  In  the  early  days  of  our  na- 
tional government  there  existed  an  honest  distrust 
of  the  as  yet  untried  experiment  of  popular  censor- 
ship over  legislatures.  The  Senate,  like  preceding 
colonial  bodies,  sat  with  closed  doors.  Statesmen, 
with  the  vision  of  women  wild-eyed  and  with  dis- 
heveled hair,  clambering  into  the  presiding  desk 
of  the  French  Assembly,  feared  that  the  passions 
of  the  people  might  surge  into  legislative  halls.2 
The  galleries  of  the  House  have  been  open  from 
the  beginnings  and  now  and  then  a  member  has 
declared,  as  did  one  in  1795,  that  "the  public  are 
entitled  to  know  the  sentiments  of  the  committee 
individually,  as  well  as  of  the  House  collectively." 
One  of  these  in  1880  failed  to  secure  an  added 
clause  to  the  rules  as  follows,  "  Every  report  shall 
be  in  writing,  and  shall  give  the  names  of  the  mem- 

1  Sir  Henry  Maine's  "  Popular  Government,"  236-239. 

2  Bentham's  "  Essay  on  Parliamentary  Tactics  "  decries  the 
presence  of  fair  women  in  legislative  galleries,  an  argument  amus- 
ing to  the  modern  reader. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        59 

oers  of  the  committee  who  concur  in  the  recommen- 
dations thereof."  Debate  was  but  brief ;  supporters 
of  the  measure  urged  that  it  meant  economy,  en- 
abled the  House  to  judge  a  proposed  act  from 
personal  knowledge  of  those  committeemen  whose 
names  were  appended  in  its  favor.  Judges  of  the 
courts  and  committees  of  some  State  legislatures, 
said  they,  give  in  this  way  the  weight  of  personal 
responsibility  to  decisions  and  laws.  No  hint  was 
dropped  that  the  outside  public  would  read  the 
names  also.  One  man  went  on  record  as  an  enemy 
of  the  proposition.  Members  absent  from  commit- 
tee meetings,  said  he,  would  be  treated  unjustly, 
by  the  exposure  of  the  fact  in  this  way ;  by  these 
revelations  the  lobbyist  would  know  upon  just  what 
persons  to  turn  his  threats  or  blandishments.1  In 
the  Fifty-third  Congress  a  bill  was  introduced  to 
make  unlawful  all  secret  sessions  of  committees 
and  sub-committees  except  during  the  consideration 
of  executive  business.2 

A  number  of  forces  have  counted  against  se- 
crecy, or  worked  for  larger  and  larger  publicity. 
The  lobbyist  has  not  always  been  sure  of  his  man ; 
now  and  then  the  Representative  has  exposed  him 
in  open  House,  and  to  the  heavy  penalties  of  the 
law;  beginning  with  such  a  case  in  1795,  an  at- 
tempt to  bribe  the  chairman  of  a  Committee  on 

1  C.  R.,  Feb.  11,  1880.    A  first  vote  stood  45  to  80  for  adoption. 

2  H.  J.,  543,  1893-1894. 


60  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Land  Offices  with  shares  of  western  lands,  these 
bright  examples  of  legislative  esprit  de  corps  have 
had  occasional  manifestation.  The  earliest  form 
of  publicity  for  committee  proceedings  came,  both 
in  England  and  America,  through  the  printing  of 
their  reports.1  From  the  beginning  this  practice 
has  obtained  in  the  House  more  and  more  fully, 
and  journalists  continually  send  to  the  great  news- 
papers notices  of  such  reports  as  they  think  will 
be  of  interest.2  All  reports  of  committees  of  what- 
ever description,  including  those  of  minorities,  must 
be  printed.  A  recent  amendment  of  the  rules  cor- 
rects, to  a  large  extent,  abuses  which  had  grown 
up  in  connection  with  conference  reports,  by  pro- 
viding that  they  shall  be  detailed  and  explicit  as 
to  changes  in  bills  agreed  upon  by  the  managers. 
Each  Congressman  is  entitled  to  one  copy  of  every 
printed  document.8  Committee  sessions  are  always 
open  to  members  of  the  House.  The  more  impor- 
tant committees  have  become  so  large  that  oppor- 
tunities for  cabal  are  much  lessened.  With  the 
reporter  going  the  rounds  for  interviews,  with  a 
diversity  of  interests  represented  by  committeemen 

1  A  member  avowed  in  behalf  of  printed  reports  that  they 
were  for  the  enlightenment  of  the  House  and  of  public  opinion, 
21:1,  C.  A.,  Dec.  16,  1829. 

2  During  the  Civil  War  reports  of  investigating  committees 
were  printed  and  sold  by  one  of  the  New  York  daily  papers. 

s  More  than  30,000,000  pieces  were  handled  at  the  Fifty-first 
Congress.  — T.  H.  McKee's  "  United  States  Red  Book." 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        61 

from  many  States,  with  a  minority  on  the  watch, 
and  quick  to  report  to  the  House  and  to  the  pub- 
lic, with  the  gossipy  confidences  which  pass  among 
public  men,  and  the  easy  evasions  of  that  anti- 
quated precedent  which  forbids  any  mention  of 
committee  proceedings  in  House  debates,  with  the 
filibuster  whose  athletics  have  sometimes  called  the 
attention  of  the  country  to  iniquitous  measures,  — 
publicity  has  generally  got  in  some  degree  its  due, 
though  often  too  late. 

Tendencies  past  and  present  point  to  the  desira- 
bility and  —  perhaps  it  is  not  too  strong  an  infer- 
ence —  to  the  inevitableness  of  a  full  publicity  for 
committee  work.  The  committee  hearing  is  the 
most  hopeful  sign.  No  feature  of  Congressional 
legislation  is  more  interesting.  It  is  a  happy  de- 
vice for  gleaning  information  and  gauging  public 
opinion.  It  is  growing  in  favor,  and  perfecting  its 
development.  A  cpmmittee  at  the  outset  of  its 
session's  work  will  schedule  fifteen  or  twenty  days 
for  presentation  of  arguments  upon  one  of  its  prom- 
inent measures  by  outsiders.  This  testimony  is 
caught  by  the  stenographer's  pencil,  and  presently 
appears  as  a  printed  and  indexed  booklet,  which 
serves  as  the  principal  text  for  the  committee's 
action.1     Before  the  daily  meeting  of  the  House, 

1  A  beginning  has  been  made  of  preserving  hearings  in  the  an- 
nual series  of  public  documents ;  cf.  53: 1,  H.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  VI. 
1220  pp. 


62  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

from  10.30  in  the  morning  until  noon,  is  a  usual 
period  for  the  hearing.  The  first  comers  at  such  a 
meeting  are  naturally  those  who  expect  to  present 
their  views  before  the  committee.  They  are  stran- 
gers in  the  city  and  the  Capitol,  and  come,  it  may 
be,  from  distant  parts  of  the  Union.  They  find 
themselves  in  a  large,  square  room  with  frescoed 
dome,  from  which  the  sunlight  streams  downward 
over  a  swinging  chandelier.  Shelves  of  books  and 
maps  mounted  for  convenient  reference  line  the 
walls.  There  are  easy  sofas,  a  hoine-like  fireplace 
surmounted  by  a  fine  mirror,  and  other  objects 
of  convenience  or  comfort.  Diagonally  across  the 
room  extends  the  great,  solid  committee  table,  bor- 
dered by  ample  cushioned  chairs,  and  laden  with 
thick  files  of  the  bills  which  await  action.  A  hum 
of  conversation  hushes  when  the  chairman,  the 
first  committeeman  to  arrive,  takes  his  seat  at  the 
head  of  the  table.  The  visitors  are  introduced 
by  their  home  Congressman,  although  he  is  not 
a  member  of  the  committee.  Proceedings  begin 
with  a  few  of  the  committeemen  present,  and 
others  drop  in  one  by  one,  the  minority  members 
being  the  greatest  laggards.  Upon  the  Congress- 
man who  has  introduced  his  constituents  the  chair 
will  probably  bestow  the  honor  of  managing  the 
floor,  including  the  order  of  the  programme,  the 
introduction  of  speakers,  and  the  equitable  division 
among  them  of  the  one  hour  and  a  half  for  debate. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        63 

Each  advocate  or  witness  stands  in  turn  at  the 
foot  of  the  table  facing  the  chairman,  and  strives 
earnestly  to  impress  his  views  upon  the  auditory, 
subject  all  the  while  to  a  fire  of  cross-questioning 
from  those  who  choose  to  interrupt.  An  impor- 
tant general  appropriation  or  tariff  bill  may  be  the 
theme.  Perhaps  these  invaders  of  the  Congres- 
sional halls  represent  rival  towns  in  a  fast  devel- 
oping and  somewhat  lawless  mountain  region  of 
West  Virginia,  where  the  establishment  of  a  new 
Federal  court  has  become  necessary;  or  they  are 
the  spokesmen  of  contending  religious  sects,  who 
urge  or  oppose  the  introduction  of  the  name  of 
Deity  into  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States ; 
or  they  stand  for  two  great  clashing  industries, 
filled  cheese  and  oleomargarine  against  butter  and 
full-cream  cheese,  the  grievance  of  the  quiet,  self- 
respecting  American  cow  against  the  pushing, 
unscrupulous  American  porker,  the  conflict  of 
Vermont  meadows  with  corn  and  cotton  fields 
of  Illinois  and  Georgia.  It  is  a  revelation  to  the 
onlooker,  an  indispensable  key  to  the  puzzles  of 
that  vast  onward  sweep  of  legislation  in  the  full 
arena  of  the  House.  Here  he  sees  the  headsprings 
of  law.  Here  is  the  despised  secret  lobby  hope- 
fully transforming  into  the  open  and  fair  voice 
of  all  who  desire  to  be  heard.  From  every  class 
and  occupation  the  influences  come.  Ministers 
of  the  gospel  and  labor  delegates  touch  elbows. 


64  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

The  physician  and  the  expert  of  science  contrib- 
ute their  testimony.  Clerks  and  other  officials 
of  long  experience  in  government  answer  the  call 
for  information.  The  judge,  the  old  soldier,  the 
merchant,  come  burdened  with  the  letters,  the  af- 
fidavits, and  the  carefully  prepared  addresses  of 
distant  fellow-citizens  and  comrades.  There  are 
readings  of  newspaper  articles,  echoes  from  nume- 
rous conventions,  indorsements  of  labor  organ- 
izations, amendments  for  pending  bills  suggested 
by  produce  exchanges,  even  voices  from  foreign 
lands.  It  is  the  point  of  mutual  touch  between 
two  fully  developed  standing  committees,  the  one 
maintained  by  some  voluntary  association  of  the 
people  for  the  purpose  of  influencing  legislation, 
the  other  established  by  Congress  to  ascertain  and 
supply  the  needs  of  society  in  the  way  of  new 
laws.  While  the  private  advocate  is  delivering 
before  the  committee  his  careful  and  labored  argu- 
ment, the  legislator  leans  forward  with  eyes  and 
ears  all  eager  attention ;  for  afterward,  when  the 
bill  comes  up  in  the  House,  he  will  rehearse  the 
committee  hearing  in  a  broader,  somewhat  drama- 
tized way. 

A  prominent  Senator  has  playfully  called  the 
committees  "  little  legislatures."  Why  not  accept 
the  situation,  and  make  them  such  in  a  much  fuller 
sense?  Their  development  in  this  direction  has 
been  marked.     To  follow  for  illustration  but  one 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        65 

line,  consider  the  accommodations  which  they  have 
gradually  won  from  an  unwilling  and  often  nig- 
gardly House.  Many  a  Congressman  has  spent  a 
large  part  of  his  time  keeping  the  records  of  his  com- 
mittee, and  doing  other  writing  which  its  work  has 
necessitated.  The  committee  on  the  defeat  of  Gen- 
eral St.  Clair  paid  one  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  to 
a  clerk,  March  2, 1793.  June  1, 1796,  a  clerk  em- 
ployed by  the  committees  was  allowed  one  hundred 
and  fifty  dollars  for  work  during  the  session.  In 
1803,  when  a  member  moved  that  the  committees 
collectively  should  have  two  clerks,  the  House  re- 
fused to  consider  the  resolution.1  Similar  propo- 
sitions were  rejected  in  1815  and  in  1817.2  With 
constant  pleading  on  the  part  of  the  chairmen,  re- 
sults began  to  be  obtained  about  1835  or  1840. 
In  emergencies  of  business  the  favor  was  then 
granted,  and  these  assistants  were  paid  by  the  num- 
ber of  hours  or  days  of  their  service.3  There  were 
vigorous  objections  in  1853  to  a  bill  of  four  thou- 
sand, five  hundred  dollars,  for  the  annual  services 
of  three  of  the  four  committee  clerks  then  employed 
by  the  Claims,  the  Ways  and  Means,  the  Post-Of- 
fices and  Post-Roads,  and  the  Commerce.4  Four 
new  clerks  were  added  when  the  burdens  of  the 
Civil  War  came.    From  these  modest  and  slow  be- 

i  C.  A.,  Jan.  28,  1803. 
2  C.  A.,  Dec.  18,  1815;  Jan.  30,  1817. 
«  C.  G.,  Dec.  15,  1839,  and  Jan.  15,  1840. 
4  C.  G.,  Feb.  16,  1853. 


66  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ginnings  the  time  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress  finds 
forty-one  committees  with  annual  clerks,  while  there 
are  two  stenographers,  besides  a  large  number  of 
session  clerks  and  messengers.1  So  it  has  been  as 
regards  other  accommodations,  libraries,  rooms,  fur- 
nishings.2 With  about  forty  standing  committees 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War,  want  of  space  in 
the  great  Capitol  was  not  felt.  There  had  been 
little  or  no  friction  since  the  allotment  by  a  joint 
committee  not  long  after  the  second  war  with  Eng- 
land.3 But  in  1869  Speaker  Blaine  complained 
that  committees  were  crowded  two  and  three  to- 
gether, and  the  House  directed  the  fitting  up  of  six 
new  apartments.4  Next  year  James  A.  Garfield  pro- 
tested against  being  obliged  to  work  in  a  cramped 
committee  room,  and  inhale  disagreeable  odors  from 
the  restaurant.  At  this  time  the  post-office  was 
removed  to  make  larger  place  for  the  finance  com- 
mittees. The  increase  in  the  number  of  standing 
committees  to  fifty-five,  together  with  their  en- 
larged business,  their  growing  practice  of  giving 
hearings,  and  the  accumulation  of  books,  records, 
and  other  material  through  a  long  series  of  years, 
has  crowded  the  building  beyond  its  capacity.  In 
every  part  of  the  immense  structure,  —  attic,  main 

1  Congressional  Directory,  1893. 

2  The  first  volume  of  the  House  Miscellaneous  Documents 
for  each  session  contains  a  detailed  and  interesting  inventory  of 
committee  expenses  and  of  property  in  committee  rooms. 

8  C.  A.,  Jan.  18,  1817.  4  C.  G.,  Mar.  26,  Apr.  9,  1869. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND   THE  COMMITTEE.        67 

floor,  basement,  terrace,  and  sub-basement,  —  the 
committees  of  Congress  lodge,  often  two  in  a 
room ;  and  still  they  have  not  sufficient  space,  so 
that  buildings  and  apartments  are  rented  in  adja- 
cent parts  of  the  city. 

These  are  but  two  of  many  lines  of  their  prog- 
ress. Now,  assuming  that  Congress  will  some  time 
follow  up  the  suggestions  which  this  steady  ad- 
vance and  this  necessity  for  further  accommoda- 
tions are  strongly  forcing  upon  its  notice,  what  may 
be  the  results  ?  It  will  resolve,  say,  to  make  each 
one  at  least  of  the  principal  committees  a  true 
miniature  of  itself.  The  children  of  the  old  assem- 
bly will  in  their  maturity  have  separate  homes  of 
their  own.  With  the  money  now  wasted  upon 
the  committee  system,  and  with  additional,  but 
justifiable,  expense,  the  necessary  number  of  com- 
modious structures  will  rise  upon  the  ample  parks 
that  surround  the  Capitol.  Each  committee  build- 
ing or  hall,  planned  with  the  more  perfect  archi- 
tectural knowledge  of  later  times  and  with  effort 
for  the  best  acoustic  properties,  will  have  its  own 
galleries,  clerks,  sergeants-alarms,  doorkeepers, 
and  pages.  Those  parliamentary  processes  which 
are  embodied  in  the  Constitution  with  reference  to 
the  House  itself,  as  the  power  to  choose  officers, 
compulsory  attendance  of  absent  members,  or  the 
keeping  of  journals,  besides  such  regulations  as  the 
nature,  business,  and  circumstances  of  each  individ- 


68  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ual  committee  may  require,  will  be  adapted  to  pro- 
ceedings. If  private  bills  are  yet  to  be  considered 
by  Congress,  a  system  similar  to  or  better  than 
that  which  is  so  admirably  worked  out  in  England 
may  throw  the  safeguards  of  quasi- judicial  forms 
about  the  claim  and  pension  committees,  so  that 
visitors  at  the  seat  of  government  will  see  in  their 
proceedings  the  fairness  and  justice  which  they 
have  long  witnessed  and  admired  in  the  methods  of 
the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States.1  Were 
there  also  provisions  for  disseminating  throughout 
the  country  more  fully  and  in  better  forms  infor- 
mation, not  only  of  private,  but  also  of  public, 
legislative  doings,  constituents  could  form  a  more 
intelligent  estimate  of  the  work  of  their  represen- 
tatives, and  publicity  would  have  its  most  bene- 
ficial scope. 

Invent  some  such  method  of  what  might  be 
called  legislative  extension,  for  scattering  knowl- 

1  There  are  numerous  descriptions  of  the  British  methods  of 
dealing  with  private  legislation,  with  their  ample  printed  and 
private  notices  to  parties  interested  in  local  or  individual  bills, 
public  sessions  of  committees,  and  the  submission  of  their  journals 
to  the  House,  system  of  promoters  and  opposers  represented  by 
their  counsels,  arrangement  of  costs,  legalization  of  the  lobby,  se- 
curity for  correct  law  forms,  and  careful  system  of  consideration 
by  several  committees.  Among  them  may  be  mentioned:  "The 
Standing  Orders  of  the  House  of  Commons ;  "  Sir  T.  Erskine  May's 
"  Usages  of  Parliament;  "  an  article  by  Professor  J.  W.  Jenks  on 
"  Methods  of  Law-Making"  in  Johnson's  Cyclopaedia;  a  note  by 
James  Bryce  in  the  Appendix  to  the  third  edition  of  the  "Ameri- 
can Commonwealth;"  and  Simon  Sterne's  article  on  "Legisla- 
tion" in  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia. 


THE  PUBLIC  AND    THE   COMMITTEE.        69 

edge.  Train  upon  those  to  whom  he  commits  his 
trust  the  living  eyes  of  the  citizen,  an  influence 
compared  with  which  all  others  are  shadowy  and 
uncertain.  What  would  follow?  To  the  commit- 
tee and  committeeman,  if  honest,  would  accrue  a 
juster  estimate  of  services  rendered,  and  a  truer 
appreciation  of  long  and  laborious  study  for  the 
public  welfare.  Calumny  and  misrepresentation 
might  not  so  often  and  so  strongly  fasten  upon 
those  who  are  really  faithful.  That  unjust  treats 
ment  which  a  carefully  elaborated  report,  the  work 
perhaps  of  months,  sometimes  receives  from  the 
House,  —  unless  it  be  protected  by  the  personal 
influence  of  the  committeeman,  —  would  be  less 
practicable;  for  the  members  in  general  must  be 
more  careful  about  rejecting  or  cutting  in  pieces  a 
work  of  whose  progress  and  value  the  public  has 
been  observant.  The  committee  minority  would 
be  brought  into  better  play,  with  a  check  to  the 
tendency  of  which  a  Speaker  recently  complains ; 
namely,  that  each  part  of  the  large  committees 
tends  to  act  independently  of  the  other.  On  the 
opposite  score,  that  species  of  corrupt  cabal  which 
occasionally  breaks  down  party  lines  would  become 
extinct.  Congressmen  could  not  take  so  much  ad- 
vantage of  other  speculators  in  the  great  markets, 
through  their  inside  knowledge  of  forthcoming 
legislation. 

On  the  part  of  the  House,  because  of  its  better 


70  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

knowledge  of  the  character  of  the  committees,  it 
would  make  fewer  mistakes  in  commitment;  its 
floor  would  be  managed  to  a  less  extent  by  shrewd 
log-rolling  demagogues,  more  by  careful  and  com- 
manding statesmen;  the  better  man  would  come 
to  the  front,  the  worse  be  relegated  to  the  rear; 
its  confidence  in  the  machinery  of  its  committees 
could  be  so  great,  that  the  mere  formal  vote, 
whereby,  so  far  as  it  can,  it  now  frequently  gives 
to  their  determinations  the  force  of  law,  would  be 
perfectly  safe  and  proper.  In  such  small  and  se- 
lect public  forums  the  Cabinet  officer  who  bows 
himself  in  and  out  of  a  chamber  of  inquisition  — 
to  take  the  term  from  Congressmen  themselves  — 
might  have  the  ear  of  the  country  in  replying  to 
interpellations ;  oratory,  lost  in  the  infancy  of 
the  House,  would  revive  ;  the  voice  of  the  individ- 
ual member  in  warning  peal  or  matchless  advo- 
cacy might  fill  the  land  and  traverse  the  seas,  until 
the  Londoner  should  follow  and  admire  American 
Representatives  as  Bostonians  have  listened  to 
the  words- of  the  Grand  Old  Man  or  the  Great 
Commoner.  Individual  and  party  responsibility 
for  every  measure  could  be  fixed  beyond  doubt, 
and  the  suspicions  of  the  people  could  give  way 
to  confidence  and  pride  in  that  branch  of  the  gov- 
ernment which  stands  nearest  to  them. 


A  deliberative  assembly  is  tbe  worst  of  all  tribunals  for  the 
administration  of  justice. 

John  Quincy  Adams. 


Repudiation  is  repudiation,  and  dishonesty  is  dishonesty, 
whether  the  foreign  bondholder  or  the  humble  citizen  be  the 
victim. 

George  F.  Hoar. 


The  power  to  punish  somebody  else  is  a  delegated  power.    It 
is  not  Inherent  in  any  tribunal,  nor  in  any  man. 

Matt.  H.  Carpenter. 


72  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 


CHAPTER   III. 

THE     COMMITTEE   AND   PRIVATE   INTERESTS. 

Legislatures  must  meet  and  decide  in  their 
proceedings  a  conflict  between  public  or  general, 
and  private  or  local,  rights  and  interests.  In  New 
York  City  Hall  in  1789  Congress  first  faced  these 
two  lines  of  business,  which  it  has  ever  since  been 
striving  to  reconcile.  By  public  law  the  machin- 
ery of  a  new  government  in  a  new  country  was  to 
be  set  in  motion.  That  terrible  state  of  affairs,  — 
almost  anarchy, — the  bequest  of  the  Confedera- 
tion, presented  problems  as  grave  as  any  that  have 
ever  puzzled  a  lawgiver.  On  the  other  hand, 
came  the  knocking  at  the  door  which  the  Consti- 
tution itself  encouraged,  and  which  has  since  so 
mightily  increased,  —  prayers  of  individuals  and 
corporations,  inventors,  pensioners,  war  claimants, 
land-jobbers,  seekers  of  the  North  Pole,  and  what 
not.  Our  general  government  being  one  of  enu- 
merated powers,  should  have  much  ampler  time 
than  that  of  England,  for  instance,  which  may  take 
to  itself  at  will  and  to  any  extent  the  management 
of  local  affairs.     Yet  Congress  has  more  than  lost 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  73 

this  advantage  by  clinging  to  a  vast  and  ever  in- 
creasing number  of  petty  private  applications,  an 
Atlas  burden,  such  as  requires  for  its  proper  carry- 
ing perhaps  many  times  as  many  workers  as  House 
and  Senate  can  furnish.  Four-tenths  of  all  the 
bills  introduced  into  the  House  .are  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Invalid  Pensions.1  By  every  de- 
vice, by  iron  laws  for  speedy  legislative  action,  by 
a  continual  multiplication  of  committees,  by  enlist- 
ing the  services  of  the  executive  departments,  and 
by  establishing  a  Court  of  Claims  and  a  Pension 
Bureau,  Congress  has  sought  to  meet  its  obliga- 
tions without  relinquishing  the  power  of  finally 
deciding  each  case.  To  give  to  courts  entire  juris- 
diction over  such  matters  would  be  an  abdication 
to  one  of  the  other  departments  of  government. 
Doubtless  something  in  the  relative  power  of  the 
three  grand  divisions  of  the  American  government 
explains  this  jealous  tenacity.2  The  contemporary 
British  House  of  Commons  has  felt  no  such  scru- 
ples. Not  only  has  it  turned  over  to  the  courts  a 
large  part  of  its  private  jurisdiction,  it  has  even  be- 
stowed upon  them  the  decision  of  contested  cases 
of  election  to  its  own  membership. 

A  prime  root  of  the  much  deprecated  power  of 
Congressional  committees  lies,  according  to  Alex- 
ander Johnston,   in  the  presence   of   these  petty 

i  C.  R.,  Jan.  23,  1888,  remarks  of  Mr.  Walker. 

2  Cf.  Goodnow's  "  Comparative  Administrative  Law,"  11.285. 


74  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

measures  which  crowd  the  calendars,  and,  as  con- 
cerns most  bills,  banish  all  the  deliberation  and  all 
the  action  save  a  hurried  vote  into  the  committee 
rooms.1  Of  the  eight  hundred  and  seventy-odd 
statutes  established  by  the  Forty-ninth  Congress, 
more  than  one-half  were  of  a  private  nature. 

In  earlier  days  there  was  something  like  reason- 
able time  for  both  kinds  of  legislation.  The  Fed- 
eralists were  more  strict  than  their  successors,  the 
Republicans,  in  giving  the  preference  to  public 
laws.  The  First  Congress,  with  its  three  sessions, 
shows  eighty-seven  public  and  four  private  stat- 
utes. The  latter,  however,  deal  with  some  thirty 
individual  cases.  A  futile  struggle  to  bring  for- 
ward ninety  claims  occurred  at  the  special  session 
in  1797.  In  the  same  year  the  standing  Com- 
mittee on  Claims  was  throwing  out  all  cases  not 
founded  on  the  general  law.  The  dragging-in- 
chancery  practice  of  referring  anew  all  matters 
committed,  and  not  reported  upon  at  former  ses- 
sions, had  begun  at  that  early  date.  When  Jeffer- 
son's party  came  to  possess  the  gates,  its  tone  was 
somewhat  less  strict ;  "  the  People  "  were  referred 
to  in  argument;  the  select  committee  was  often 
raised,  now  to  fix  an  annuity  for  a  widow,  again 
to  consider  claims  barred  by  the  statute  of  limita- 
tions. But  in  1820  the  House  annulled  a  rule 
which  gave  private  bills  the  preference  in  Com- 

1  Lalor's  Cyclopaedia,  II.  476. 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  75 

mittee  of  the  Whole.1  In  1829  a  Congressman 
complained  that  committees  had  free  range  for  par- 
tiality ;  since  by  the  rules  their  unfavorable  reports 
went  to  the  foot  of  the  docket,  and  in  the  press 
of  thousands  of  such  subjects  were  endlessly  de- 
layed.2 John  Quincy  Adams  asserted  in  1832  that 
Congress  spent  one-half  its  time  considering  private 
business,  with  no  uniformity  in  its  decisions.8 

Justice  in  innumerable  cases  has  failed  because 
even  the  hurried  vote  of  the  House  for  or  against 
a  committee  report  has  not  been  forthcoming. 
Public  business  has  rightly  taken  the  larger  share 
of  the  time,  and  the  more  pressing  it  has  been  the 
more  have  private  dockets  gone  to  the  wall.  Roger 
Q.  Mills  once  asserted  that  he  had  passed  through 
at  last  a  claim  which  had  not  had  a  dissenting  voice 
in  all  the  committees  which  had  considered  it  dur- 
ing twenty-odd  years.4  "I  would  suggest  to  the 
gentleman  from  Iowa,"  said  a  member  of  the  Fifty- 
third  Congress,  "  that  not  a  single  private  bill  was 
considered  in  the  last  Congress."  Unanimous  con- 
sent is  now  required  for  reference  of  private  claims 
to  any  other  than  six  specified  committees.5  On 
Fridays  only  the  House  entertains  a  motion  to  take 
up  the  calendar  of  private  bills  ;  but  on  that  day  of 
the  week  an  evening  session  is  commanded  for  con- 

i  C.  A.,  Nov.  21,  1820.  2  c.  A.,  Jan.  30,  1829. 

»  J.  Q.  Adams's  "Memoirs,"  VIII.  480. 

4  C.  R.,  Feb.  8,  1884.  *  Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XXI.  3. 


76  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

sideration  of  pensions,  and  for  removal  of  political 
disabilities  or  charges  of  desertion  from  the  army.1 
Since  the  morning  hour  has  fallen  into  disuse,  each 
day's  session  is  opened  with  more  or  less  extended 
action  upon  private  and  local  bills  under  unani- 
mous consent.  It  is  a  remarkable  sight,  a  dozen  or 
more  men  of  both  parties  gathered  in  front  of  the 
Speaker's  chair,  with  papers  held  high  over  their 
heads,  each  silently  pleading  for  recognition.  They 
are  grotesque  witnesses  to  the  travesty  and  fu- 
tility of  trying  such  matters  before  so  immense  a 
court  of  interested  and  uninterested  judges.  By 
a  special  order  the  House,  on  May  5, 1896,  cleared 
the  private  calendar  of  seventy  out  of  four  hundred 
pending  pension  measures,  devoting  ten  minutes  to 
each  bill.  A  history  of  the  frauds  upon  the  treas- 
ury which  have  probably  succeeded  through  a  sys- 
tem which  has  thus  specially  tempted  men  to  buy 
consideration  of  their  schemes,  of  the  days  and 
weeks  which  Congress  has  spent  in  wrangling  over 
petty  money  bills  involving  but  a  small  fraction 
of  its  running  expenses  while  considering  them,  of 
the  long  succession  of  martyrs,  worthy  claimants 


1  Rules  XXIV.  6  and  XXVI.  3.  Since  1821  the  appendix  to 
each  Journal  of  the  House  has  contained  its  rules.  This  setting 
apart  of  Friday  dates  back  to  Jan.  22,  1810.  For  some  years  both 
Friday  and  Saturday  were  "  private-bill  days,"  but  were  largely 
thrown  away  because  by  the  rules  an  individual  member  could 
utter  the  cabalistic  "  I  object,"  which,  if  seconded  by  a  majority, 
threw  a  report  to  the  end  of  the  calendar. 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  77 

to  whom  reparation  has  been  delayed  and  denied 
until  death  has  put  them  beyond  its  possibility,  — 
such  a  history  would  intermingle  the  most  pathetic 
and  the  most  reprehensible  phases  of  human  life. 
Congressmen  have  roughly  sketched,  but  not  over- 
drawn, word-pictures  that  put  the  entire  stoiy  of  half 
a  century  in  small  compass.  One  constitutes  him- 
self a  watch  upon  the  national  funds,  and  cries  :  — 

"Vigilance,  sleepless  vigilance,  is  necessaiy  on 
our  part.  We  are  beset  at  every  corner  and  in 
every  street  and  alley  with  loafers,  agents,  and  sep- 
arate county  court  lawyers.  Every  applicant  for 
relief  who  attends  the  Capital  has  his  ten  agents  to 
importune  you,  and  every  agent  has  his  ten  claims 
to  present.  And  every  claim  amounts  to  from  ten 
thousand  dollars  to  one  hundred  thousand  dollars. 
Every  sympathetic  feeling  is  aroused  with  the  tale 
of  woe  and  poverty;  every  applicant  has  a  wife 
and  nine  small  children  and  one  at  the  breast,  and, 
over  and  above  John  Rogers's  number,  an  aged 
and  tottering  father  and  mother  to  support,  and 
some  cousins.  Sir,  look  at  our  desks  every  morn- 
ing, piled  high  with  fresh  claims  dripping  from  the 
press,  while  we  are  swamped  knee-deep  with  those 
that  preceded  them  the  day  before,  all  reported  by 
the  Committee  of  Claims."  1 

Another,  with  compassion  and  indignation  for 

1  Speech  in  the  House,  of  Alexander  Duncan  of  Ohio,  March 
30,  1838. 


78  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

the  wrongs  of  humble  citizens,  stands  forth  to  speak 
for  them :  — 

"  Look  at  this  book  [holding  it  up  in  his  hand], 
the  Calendar  of  this  House,  a  veritable  tomb  of 
the  Capulets,  a  grave  of  dead  hopes.  There  are 
more  tragedies  bound  up  within  the  covers  of  this 
book  than  in  any  novel  or  set  of  novels  ever  writ- 
ten. This  book  represents  money  due  to  poor 
widows  and  children,  and  heirs  of  Revolutionary 
soldiers,  or  other  worthy  and  suffering  claimants. 
It  represents  hopes  that  have  been  abandoned.  It 
represents  claimants  who  have  come  here,  year 
after  year,  praying  the  United  States  to  pay  its 
honest  debts  ;  and  it  represents  the  disgrace  of  the 
United  States  in  not  paying  its  just  dues  to  hon- 
est men,  women,  and  children,  and  to  soldiers  and 
sailors,  and  to  many  a  one  who  has  deserved  better 
treatment  at  his  country's  hands."  1 

Some  measures  for  relief  of  the  government  and 
the  claimants  have  tardily  appeared.  With  a  long 
preceding  period  of  agitation  therefor,  Congress 
in  1855  established  the  Court  of  Claims.2  Con- 
current jurisdiction  with  it  has  since  been  extended 
in  cases  involving  one  thousand  dollars  and  less  to 
the  Federal  District  Courts,  in  cases  involving  one 
thousand  to  ten  thousand  dollars  to  the  Circuit 

1  Speech  in  the  House,  of  Selwyn  Z.  Bowman  of  Massachusetts, 
April  21,  1882. 

2  James  Parton  praises  this  action  in  "Topics  of  the  Time," 
5-7. 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  79 

Courts.  Yet  —  excepting  that  the  executive  de- 
partments may  refer  cases  directly  to  the  judicial 
tribunals  —  all  such  must,  for  consideration  and 
completion,  still  enter  at  their  first  stage,  and, 
with  intermediate  reference  to  committees,  pass 
out  to  the  President  at  their  last  stage  through 
the  legislative  halls.  Sums  for  less  than  one  thou- 
sand dollars  may  be  combined  into  an  omnibus 
bill.  Cases  which  do  not  fall  within  the  scope  of 
existing  laws  still  tax  Congress  with  their  entire 
treatment.  Though  the  Court  of  Claims  had  re- 
jected ninety-two  per  cent  of  all  applications  of 
Southerners  for  relief  on  account  of  Civil  War 
damages,  the  remaining  eight  per  cent  of  loyal  cit- 
izens were  denied  justice  by  the  Fifty-fourth  Con- 
gress. Much  remains  to  be  done  for  the  cure  of 
these  wrongs  and  this  congestion.  Private  claims 
upon  government  are  best  dealt  with  by  courts 
of  justice  exclusively;  the  legislature  finds  its  ex- 
alted sphere  of  activity  in  the  general  welfare. 

The  compulsory  attendance  of  private  citizens 
upon  committees  has  great  interest  on  the  score  of 
a  reconciliation  between  public  and  private  rights.1 
The  power  of  a  legislature  to  send  for  persons  and 
papers  is  much  older  than  our  Constitution.  Be- 
fore Jamestown  or  Plymouth,  yes,  before  the  sepa- 

1  Clerk  Henry  H.  Smith's  "  Digest  of  Decisions  and  Prece- 
dents" is  an  exhaustive  history  of  the.  Congress  on  this  and  re- 
lated heads.  It  is  printed  as  53:2,  Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  XII.  975 
pp. 


80  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ration  of  Lords  and  Commons,  the  High  Court  of 
Parliament  exercised  this  privilege  as  to  English 
subjects,  often  with  rudeness  and  despotism.  No 
express  provision  of  our  Constitution  gives  it  to 
Congress;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  is  guaranteed 
"  the  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  per- 
sons, houses,  papers,  and  effects  against  unreason- 
able searches  and  seizures."  Very  sparingly,  to 
begin  with,  did  the  House  delegate  the  right  to 
send  for  persons  and  papers  to  its  committees.  It 
was  at  first  confined  to  those  for  investigating 
charges  against  public  officers,  a  duty,  on  its  face, 
judicial.  In  1792  the  select  committee  on  Gen- 
eral St.  Clair's  defeat  compelled  witnesses  to  at- 
tend, and  testify  under  oath.  As  late  as  1827  the 
power  had  been  granted  only  in  cases  of  contested 
elections  and  malfeasance  in  office.  In  that  year 
the  House  was  much  stirred  up,  and  debated  an 
entire  day,  upon  a  request  from  the  standing  Com- 
mittee on  Manufactures  that  it  be  permitted  to 
compel  attendance  of  citizens  for  examination  upon 
the  subject  of  protection  to  home  industries.  The 
opponents  of  such  action  raised  that  oft-repeated 
cry,  "  Unconstitutional."  It  was  an  enormous 
grant,  said  they,  not  for  the  purpose  of  eliciting 
fraud  or  crime,  but  merely  to  enlighten  the  House. 
Courts  had  rules  to  restrain  them,  but  committees 
had  none.  Should  a  committee  be  given  free 
range  to  summon  busy  men  from  Machias  or  the 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  81 

Gulf  of  Mexico  ?  By  an  odd  play  of  political 
forces  this  step  towards  a  more  centralized  power 
won  support  from  those  who  were  fighting  the  ex- 
tension of  the  central  prerogative  along  another 
line.  A  speech  of  Edward  Livingston  seems  to 
have  been  most  effective  in  carrying  the  day  for 
the  proposition.  Citing  the  British  Parliament  as 
employing  this  method,  he  asked :  "  Have  we  not 
memorials  from  all  the  manufacturers  ?  Do  not 
our  tables  groan  with  the  weight  of  their  com- 
plaints? What  more  can  be  desired?  Something 
more,  in  my  opinion.  ...  A  long  professional 
practice  has  taught  me  the  danger  of  relying  on 
the  testimony  of  interested  witnesses,  and  has  also 
shown  me  the  great  utility  of  cross-examination. 
From  disinterested  witnesses  it  is  calculated  to 
elicit  truth ;  but  it  is  invaluable  for  the  detection 
of  those  subterfuges  to  which  interest  resorts  in 
order  to  hide  truth,  or  to  give  a  false  color  to  a 
true  statement."  l 

From  that  day  the  practice  has  grown.  The 
House  freely  and  frequently  grants  the  privilege, 
even  to  sub-committees.  Now  more  often  the  com- 
mittee goes  to  the  witnesses :  there  is  a  stir  in  a 
great  Western  city ;  three  men  have  come  from  the 
nation's  capital  clothed  with  the  power  of  the  gen- 
eral government,  and  will  examine  its  citizens  as 

1  C.  D.,  Dec.  31, 1837.  The  decision  was  rendered  by  Yeas  and 
Nays,  102  to  88. 


82  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES.       . 

to  the  condition  of  their  post-office  or  the  causes  of 
industrial  depression.  In  the  entire  history  of  the 
House  before  the  Civil  War  the  right  to  travel  was 
conferred  upon  committees  but  twice.1  It  is  jus- 
tified by  the  great  saving  of  expenses.2  The  meth- 
ods of  taking  testimony  prescribed  by  Jefferson's 
Manual  yet  prevail.  An  investigating  committee  of 
1837  proceeded  about  as  follows  :  individual  mem- 
bers would  produce  resolutions  that  certain  ques- 
tions be  asked  by  the  committee ;  a  list  of  such  of 
these  as  the  majority  favored  would  be  made  out 
and  propounded  to  witnesses,  who  must  answer  in 
writing.  Beforehand  it  was  determined  to  what 
questions  the  answers  should  be  voluntary;  to 
what,  compulsory.3  Strict  formality  was  needed ; 
as  note  on  this  very  occasion  an  exciting  scene  un- 
der the  evening  lights  of  the  committee  room :  two 
men  stood  face  to  face  with  hands  on  concealed 
weapons,  one  a  bourgeois-despising  Southern  Con- 
gressman, the  other  a  cool-headed  representative  of 
private  business  interests ;  the  committeeman  had 
threatened  to  kill  the  witness ;  consequently  the 
latter  refused  further  attendance,  appealing  to  the 
House,  which  decided  in  his  favor.4 


1  Statement  of  Roscoe  Conkling  in  Thirty-seventh  Congress. 

2  By  Rule  XXXVII.,  H.  of  R.,  witnesses  summoned  to  Wash- 
ington are  allowed  five  cents  mileage  each  way  and  a  per  diem  of 
two  dollars. 

«  Appendix  to  Vol.  XIII.,  Part  II.,  C.  D.,  199  et  seq. 
*  C.  D.,  Feb.  4,  1837. 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  83 

From  1795,  when  the  House  had  called  to  its 
bar  and  imprisoned  a  would-be  briber,  Congress 
exercised  unchecked  for  eighty  years  the  power  to 
incarcerate  citizens  without  due  process  of  law.  It 
based  its  conduct  upon  the  American  inheritance 
of  lex  Parliamentarian  and  upon  legislative  neces- 
sity. Committees  whose  summons  or  questions 
witnesses  refused  to  answer  would  report  to  the 
House,  whose  Speaker  would  issue  warrants  to  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms  for  arrest  of  the  contumacious 
parties.  Newspaper  men  were  frequent  offenders. 
The  House  kept  them  in  duress  at  its  will.  By 
a  statute  of  1857  the  presiding  officers  of  the  two 
Houses  were  charged  with  the  duty  of  reporting 
such  persons  to  the  Attorney  of  the  District  of 
Columbia.  By  him  they  were  to  be  indicted  before 
the  grand  jury,  which  could  inflict  a  fine  of  from 
one  hundred  to  one  thousand  dollars,  and  a  term  in 
jail  of  from  one  to  twelve  months.1  Almost  every 
year  thenceforward  the  irregular  imprisonments 
continued,  regardless  of  this  law,  until  in  1876  the 
Chief  Justice  of  the  District  of  Columbia  issued  a 
writ  of  habeas  corpus  for  a  real-estate  agent  whom 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms  held  in  custody.  The  House 
instructed  its  officer  not  to  honor  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  judge.  The  judge,  in  issuing  his  writ,  had 
declared  that  Congress,  by  the  law  of  1857,  speci- 
fied the  manner  of  punishing  an  intractable  wit- 

1  Revised  Statutes  of  U.  S.,  102-104. 


84  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ness.  The  controversy  having  been  carried  to  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court,  Mr.  Justice  Miller 
gave  opinion  some  years  later  that  the  Constitu- 
tion confers  upon  Congress  no  general  and  unlim- 
ited power  to  punish  for  contempt,  but  that  its 
right  in  this  respect  is  confined  to  recalcitrance  of 
witnesses  in  those  few  cases  where  it  has  received 
a  judicial  grant,  —  contested  elections,  impeach- 
ments, and  misconduct  of  its  own  members.1 

To  present  conclusions  as  to  the  touch  between 
the  people  and  their  committees  in  its  public  and 
private  aspects :  — 

With  the  legislative  rules  as  a  setting,  the  com- 
mittees of  Congress  stand  for  the  history  and  needs, 
the  political,  economic,  and  moral  problems  of  the 
Republic ; 

Their  membership  is  representative,  as  far  as 
practicable,  of  the  different  States  of  the  Union, 
and  is  equitably  divided  between  the  majority  and 
minority  parties  of  the  House ; 

1  Incidentally  this  decision  applies  that  clause  of  the  Consti- 
tution which  provides,  as  to  members  of  Congress,  that  "  for  any 
speech  or  debate  in  either  House,  they  shall  not  be  questioned  in 
any  other  place"  to  a  committee  session  held  anywhere  within 
the  domains  of  the  United  States.  The  Court  disclaimed  power 
to  punish  the  committeemen,  but  granted  damages  against  the 
Sergeant-at-Arms  in  the  sum  of  $20,000.  44:  1,  C.  R.,  June  15, 
1876;  44:1,  H.  Mis.  Docs.,  Nos.  169  and  174;  103  U.  S.  Supreme 
Court  Reports,  168  et  seq. ;  Goodnow's  "  Comparative  Administra- 
tive Law,"  II.  269;  Spofford's  "Manual  of  Parliamentary  Rules," 
128-131. 


PRIVATE  INTERESTS.  85 

Their  responsibility  can  be  clearly  fixed  by  com- 
plete publicity,  their  efficiency  increased  by  better 
organization  and  material  equipment ; 

Justice,  the  interests  of  treasury  and  subject 
alike,  calls  for  wiser  and  more  honest  methods  of 
dealing  with  claims  of  indebtedness  presented 
against  the  government ; 

The  right  of  Congress  to  punish  private  citizens 
for  refusing  to  testify  before  its  committees  has 
been  closely  limited  by  the  supreme  judiciary. 


No  set  of  rules  can  shift  the  responsibility  which  lies  in  the 
majority. 

Henry  Cabot  Lodge. 


The  vast  number  of  members  which  compose  this  body,  the 
great  number  necessary  to  constitute  a  quorum,  the  tremendous 
interests  of  a  local  character  spreading  over  this  vast  country, 
will  necessarily  and  of  themselves,  even  without  the  constitu- 
tional guardianship  of  the  Senate  and  of  the  Executive,  prevent 
rash  action  or  too  great  an  amount  of  action. 

Thomas  B.  Reed. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE. 

Several  forces  have  been  adduced  as  working 
for  a  distinct  American  legislative  system.  The 
Congressional  procedure  is  not  long  under  exami- 
nation before  the  presence  of  another  incessantly 
asserts  itself.  Lay  a  list  of  the  standing  commit- 
tees side  by  side  with  the  Federal  Constitution, 
and  the  very  names  of  many  of  them  are  discov- 
ered in  its  enumeration  of  duties  and  powers.  It 
foreshadows  their  nature  and  their  relative  impor- 
tance. By  contrast  with  committees  in  the  Con- 
gress of  the  Confederation,  it  refines  them  until 
they  are  purely  legislative.1  In  the  differences 
between  the  functions  of  House  and  Senate  are 
paralleled  the  differences  between  their  committee 
rolls.  In  the  general  structure  of  the  government, 
with  its  highly  successful  effort  for  separation  and 
balance  of  the  three  divisions,  are  the  influences 
that  most  profoundly  mould  the  two  committee 
systems.  For  illustration,  take  the  relative  stabil- 
ity of  Executive,  Senate,  and  House.    Senators  are 

1  Sir  Henry  Maine's  "  Popular  Government,"  231  et  seq. 
87 


88  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

elected  for  six  years,  and  in  three  classes,  that  they 
may  form  a  more  continuous  body.  The  Repre- 
sentative, however,  has  but  a  brief  biennial  tenure, 
and  goes  out  at  the  same  time  with  all  his  fel- 
lows. The  thread  of  his  political  life  is  constantly 
snapped  by  cruel  constituents  of  his  own  or  the 
opposite  party.  A  large  and  never-failing  new 
element  has  threatened  by  its  ignorance  the  pre- 
cedents of  the  House.  In  1843-1845  the  entire 
delegations  of  ten  States  served  first  terms.1  More 
recently  the  majorities  of  ten  successive  Congresses, 
with  one  exception,  have  been  new  men.2  There- 
fore this  large,  unwieldy,  changing  body  holds  its 
own  with  the  smaller,  longer-lived,  more  experi- 
enced Senate  and  Executive  by  centralizing  its 
power  remarkably  in  its  older  members  —  in  the 
Speaker  and  the  committee  chairmen.  The  nat- 
ural laws  of  politics  thus  silently  adjust  inequali- 
ties ;  the  system  gives  strength  and  continuity  in 
the  midst  of  mutation.  Likewise  all  other  consti- 
tutional provisions  have  their  telling  influence 
upon  the  committees  of  the  House.  There  is  not 
a  difference  between  the  fundamental  laws  of  this 
and  other  lands,  in  letter  or  spirit,  that  does  not 
operate  to  produce  different  committee  systems. 
Within  the  new,  strange,  and  powerful  walls  of 

1  Alexandria  Gazette,  Dec.  1,  1843.  Cf.  also  National  Intelli- 
gencer, Dec.  11,  1821,  "  at  least  seventy-five  have  never  been  in 
Congress  before." 

2  Blaine's  "  Twenty  Years  in  Congress,"  II.  675. 


THE   CONTROL   BY   THE  HOUSE.  89 

the  Constitution,  with  the  "new  roof"  overhead, 
the  American  variety  of  legislators  began  in 
1789  to  be  educed.  Attention  is  first  directed  to 
main  features.  For  one  thing,  old  parliamentary 
methods  are  remodeled,  and  adapted  to  new  cir- 
ca instances,  both  to  those  established  by  the  Con- 
stitution, and  to  those  from  time  to  time  arising 
out  of  national  development.  Familiar  with  co- 
lonial ways  of  lawmaking,  and  not  at  once  com- 
prehending the  relations  which  the  new  form  of 
government  had  brought,  early  Congresses  show  a 
confusion  as  to  legislative  processes,  the  steps  of 
emergence  from  which,  though  slow,  may  be  traced 
with  gratification.  Jefferson's  complaint  of  this 
disorder  in  his  letter  to  his  parliamentary  sire, 
Judge  Wythe,  has  been  noticed ;  years  before,  El- 
bridge  Gerry  had  rebuked  the  House  for  "contin- 
ually recurring  to  the  modes  of  procedure  adopted 
by  the  late  Congress,  which  was  both  a  legislative 
and  an  executive  body."  l  By  his  Manual,  Jeffer- 
son himself  strengthened  the  bulwarks  of  conser- 
vatism. It  has  taken  nearly  a  century  to  loosen 
the  hold  of  many  of  his  British  precedents,  and 
substitute  for  them  regulations  conforming  more 
to  American  circumstances.  But  the  process  has 
gone  on  until  now,  by  contrast  with  earlier  times, 
mastery  of  the  Rules  of  the  House  is  a  much  more 
difficult  and  important  test  of  the  new  Congress- 

i  C.  A.,  March  19,  1790. 


90  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

man  than  any  ability  along  the  lines  of  general 
parliamentary  law. 

As  a  second  point,  there  has  been  a  constant  re- 
adjustment between  the  two  prime  functions  which 
belong,  as  the  supplements  of  each  other,  to  every 
legislative  body,  as  well  as  to  presidents  in  their 
cabinets,  to  judges  upon  their  benches,  and  to  all 
men  in  whatever  public  and  private  capacities ; 
namely,  the  thinking  and  the  doing,  "the  being 
sure  of  Tightness  and  the  going  ahead."  To  put 
it  in  the  law  phraseology,  it  is  the  long-standing 
^case  of  Deliberation  vs.  Action.  The  sphynx  test 
of  success  or  failure  for  a  Congress  has  ever  been 
a  wise  balance  between  these  two.  As  in  the 
individual  life,  experience  crystallizing  into  habit 
obviates  largely  the  necessity  of  minute  examina- 
tions, so  of  a  legislature.  When  a  Secretaryship 
of  the  Treasury  was  to  be  created,  there  was  a 
general  tearing  up  of  virgin  soil ;  but  the  ground 
did  not  require  so  much  work  upon  the  addition, 
a  hundred  years  afterward,  of  the  Department  of 
Agriculture.  Many  parliamentary  questions  have 
received  right  and  final  settlement  for  the  House 
of  Representatives.  In  some  senses  there  have 
been  fifty-five  Houses ;  in  others,  but  one,  which 
from  1789  has  been  steadily  enlarging  itself  in 
skill,  dispatch,  and  capacity. 

Men  have  observed  the  rapid  disappearance  of 
time-honored   methods   with   alarm.      They   have 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  91 

urged  a  restoration  of  the  old  safeguards.  Often, 
while  watching  with  mournful  sentimentality  the 
growing  disuse  of  sails  and  paddles  and  wooden 
sides,  their  eyes  have  heen  holden  to  their  replace- 
ment by  giant  boilers,  twin  screws,  and  plated 
steel.  This  is  the  third  general  feature  in  the 
progress  of  the  House  of  Representatives.  Its 
control  over  its  committees,  its  defense  of  its  mem- 
bers against  corruption,  its  securities  against  bad 
laws,  are  more  effective  than  ever;  though  the 
sharp  rap  of  the  gavel  now  cuts  off  the  debater 
with  precision  as  nice  as  the  movements  of  the 
timepiece  to  whose  minute  and  second  measure- 
ments it  falls.  There  are  some  other  ways  of  sift- 
ing right  judgment  out  of  a  huge  assembly  than 
by  setting  all  its  tongues  a-wagging. 

Now,  these  processes  are  best  appreciated  by 
comparing  widely  separated  stages.  Here  have 
not  been  wanting  the  so-often  emphasized  charac- 
teristics of  Germanic  institutions,  silent  natural 
growth,  defects  tardily  corrected,  but  withal  sound- 
ness and  healthy  life.  During  those  same  years 
of  the  Federalist  period,,  when  weakling  select 
committees  were  swaddled  in  the  little  legislative 
chambers  of  the  American  Congress,  standing  com- 
mittees sprang  full-grown  and  armed  from  huge 
new  French  Assemblies,  and  rushed  forth  to  strike 
down,  to  trample  in  dust  and  blood,  whoever,  high 
or  low,  base  or  worthy,  chanced  in  their  paths. 


92  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Since  that  awful  time,  the  French  legislator  has 
been  taming  artificially  his  overmastering  commit- 
tee, while  the  American  has  stood  by,  and  seen 
his  grow  gradually  and  safely  towards  maturity  of 
strength  and  usefulness.  The  one  draws  up  bris- 
tling reglements  for  the  sessions  of  committees ; 
the  other  says  to  them :  Go  ;  govern  yourselves ; 
let  the  fittest  survive  ! 

In  the  House  of  Representatives  action  is  em- 
bodied in  an  incessant  crowding  forward  of  meas- 
ures by  three  score  and  odd  standing  and  select 
committees.  The  typical  committee  for  delibera- 
tion has  been  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The 
term  committee  is  here  a  misnomer.  The  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  is  but  a  form  of  proceeding 
which  has  undergone  various  changes  and  assumed 
new  names;  it  has  been  merely  the  robe  donned 
by  the  House  in  the  exercise  of  authority  over  the 
real  committees  ;  it  has  been  "  the  people's  com- 
mittee," the  favorite  committee  of  the  minority, 
the  conservative  committee  needing  not  to  be  held 
in  check,  but  rather  at  times  to  be  urged  along 
with  the  general  advance.  Were  one  of  the  men  of 
the  First  Congress  to  look  in  upon  its  present-day 
sessions,  he  would  hardly  recognize  it,  so  great 
has  been  its  transformation.  A  younger  Congress- 
man recently  nonplussed  one  of  his  elders  with  the 
query :  "  Can  the  gentleman  tell  me  what  real 
necessity  there  is  for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Union?  " 


THE  CONTROL   BT  THE  HOUSE.  93 

A  sketch  of  these  changes  will  show  how  an 
ancient  legislative  garment  has  been  refitted  for 
modern  wear.  What  original  features  had  been 
given  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  by  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  have  already  been  indicated,  as  also 
how  primitive  American  conditions  had  assigned 
it  previously  to  1789  a  most  commanding  sphere  in 
legislative  assemblies.  So  much  was  its  importance 
felt,  that  one  of  the  four  sections  in  the  first  body 
of  the  House  Rules  was  exclusively  devoted  to  its 
proceedings.1  Its  long,  high-sounding  title  was 
patterned  after  that  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Nation  in  the  House  of  Com- 
mons. It  was  organized  with  a  chairman  other 
than  the  Speaker,  was  identical  in  membership  with 
the  House,  and  was  subject  to  the  same  procedure 
as  far  as  practicable,  with  the  noteworthy  exception 
that  debate  was  absolutely  unlimited.  Most  stri- 
king is  its  greatness  during  this  Federalist  period. 
The  pages  of  the  journals  are  monotonous  with  the 
formula,  "  The  House  again  resolved  itself  into 
Committee  of  the  Whole."  There,  in  the  white 
heat  of  discussion,  day  after  day  and  week  after 
week,  great  topics  were  handled,  until  long  chains 
of  resolutions  had  been  welded  into  shape,  ready 
for  the  final  touches  by  select  committees.  There 
foundations  of  American  policy  were  laid,  which 
remain  firm  as  Roman  highways.    Some  select  com- 

i  C.  A.,  April  7,  1789. 


94  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

mittees  were  so  thoroughly  informed  by  those  ex- 
tended debates,  so  definitely  instructed  by  those 
carefully  worded  resolutions,  that  their  work  came 
as  near  being  merely  mechanical  as  the  task  of  the 
trained  lawyer  who  to-day  drafts  bills  for  the  Brit- 
ish House  of  Commons.1  In  our  time  a  sub-com- 
mittee of  three  considers  and  reports  directly  to  the 
House  a  contested  election  case ;  but  in  1792,  in 
the  noted  contention  of  Anthony  Wayne  and  James 
Jackson,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  sat  judicially, 
hearing  the  speeches  of  the  claimants,  weighing  the 
evidence,  and  finally  recommending  that  the  seat  be 
declared  vacant.  Five  years  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Union  a  provision  which  Jefferson 
found  among  British  precedents  was  incorporated 
in  the  rules ;  namely,  that  "  Every  proposition  for 
a  tax  or  charge  upon  the  people  should  be  first  dis- 
cussed and  voted  in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House."  2  This  fitted  neatly  and  strongly  with  the 
constitutional  priority  of  the  House  in  financial 
matters,  and  with  some  modifications  has  among  all 
later  changes  remained  the  backbone  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

But  with  all  the  strength  of  its  beginnings,  it 
was  forced  from  the  outset  into  a  struggle  destined 
to  long  duration.  There  was  strife  between  the  ad- 
vocates of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  one 

i  Cf.  Hildreth's  "  History  of  United  States,  "  IV.  50. 
a  C.  A.,  Nov.  13,  1794. 


THE  CONTROL   BY   THE  HOUSE.  95 

hand,  and  those  of  the  select  committees  on  the 
other.  The  former  held  the  vantage  ground  as  an 
intermediary  for  reference  of  most  new  topics  from 
the  House  to  the  latter.  The  trouble  was  stirred 
up  by  a  proposal  that  the  select  committees  should 
have  the  first  consideration  of  business.  Contrary 
to  the  protest  of  one  of  the  debaters  that  this  was 
not  a  question  of  party,  it  was  a  party  question  in 
the  profoundest  sense.  Centralization  vs.  decen- 
tralization was  the  issue,  that  deep  line  of  cleav- 
age which  runs  all  through  the  history  of  parties. 
A  sharp  division  of  Federalists  as  against  Repub- 
licans, of  Administration  as  against  Opposition, 
clearly  marked  the  debates.  On  the  one  hand  the 
leaders  of  the  battle  were  Sedgwick,  Boudinot, 
Ames,  W.  L.  Smith,  Fitzsimmons,  Lawrence ;  on 
the  other,  Madison,  Page,  Gerry,  Tucker,  Liver- 
more,  White,  Vining. 

As  early  as  May  19, 1789,  in  the  consideration  of 
the  subject  of  executive  departments  this  contest 
began.  It  was  renewed  in  July  of  the  same  year, 
when  Madison  tried  to  bring  forward  the  proposed 
amendments  to  the  Constitution ;  and  another 
fierce  skirmish  came  later,  in  December  and  Janu- 
ary, 1795  and  1796.  These  discussions  developed 
and  foreshadowed  almost  every  important  phase, 
advantage  or  disadvantage,  of  our  committee  sys- 
tems. At  this  place  it  is  necessary  to  note  only  the 
weak  and  the  strong  points  urged  for  and  against 


96  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  Republicans  main- 
tained that  it  was  the  proper  agent  to  get  the  sense 
of  the  House,  the  sentiments  of  the  majority ;  to 
determine  principles  and  to  outline  business ;  to 
discuss  subjects  abstract,  dignified,  peculiar,  or  of 
great  magnitude  -,  to  give  a  necessary  publicity 
to  the  proceedings  of  Congress.  The  Federalists 
charged  that  it  wasted  precious  time  ;  brought  the 
passions  of  the  people  to  bear  upon  the  House  by 
its  publicity ;  was  inconvenient  for  the  discussion 
of  complicated  facts ;  was  liable  to  desultoriness  in 
debate ;  could  not  consider  private  bills  without 
seeming  to  be  fishing  for  applicants.  Madison  said 
that  "  there  could  be  only  two  reasons  for  referring 
on  any  occasion  to  a  select  committee,  either  where 
there  was  an  absolute  want  of  time  for  the  House 
to  digest  the  subject  themselves,  or  when  any  par- 
ticular papers  or  documents  were  to  be  examined." 
Throughout  the  Federalist  period  the  fight  went 
on.  More  than  once  the  champions  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  triumphed.  On  one  occasion 
they  were  appeased  by  reference  of  the  matter  in 
controversy  to  a  committee  of  one  from  each  State. 
But  the  drift  of  affairs,  the  logic  of  circumstances, 
the  growth  of  the  House  and  of  its  business,  were 
against  them.  Should  it  be  discussion  by  the 
House  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  first,  or  investi- 
gation first  by  a  select  committee  ?  Though  the 
process  was  gradual,  and  was  far  from  completion, 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  97 

the  year  1800  found  a  marked  tendency  to  refer 
new  subjects  directly  to  small  committees.  The 
Whole  was  a  waning,  the  Select  a  waxing  power. 
Thirty  years  after  the  above  attempt  of  Madison  to 
set  narrow  bounds  for  small  committees,  Webster 
felt  called  upon  to  inquire  what  subjects  need  not 
be  intrusted  to  them,  and  concluded  that  they  were 
"general  propositions  or  general  measures  in  re- 
gard to  which  no  investigation  as  to  facts  and  as 
to  particulars  might  probably  become  necessary."  l 
From  the  position  of  a  body  whose  work  had  been 
reviewed  by  small  committees,  the  Whole  —  and 
with  it  the  House,  since  they  were  identical  —  had 
itself  become  reviewer.  Command  had  given  place 
to  control;  authorship,  to  criticism.  Somewhere  in 
the  interval  between  these  two  statesmen  the  turn- 
ing-point had  been  passed  which  marked  the  trans- 
fer of  the  larger  part  of  the  business  of  Congress 
into  its  committee  rooms. 

After  this  the  question  had  to  be,  How  effectu- 
ally can  the  standing  committees  be  curbed  and 
regulated?  Even  with  this  less  conspicuous  part 
for  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  new  plans  had 
soon  to  be  invented.  When  Charles  Rich  entered 
the  House  in  1813,  he  found  the  standing  commit- 
tees crowding  subjects  most  diverse  upon  the  one 
existing  calendar,  to  the  utter  confusion  of  business 
as  a  session  drew  toward  its  close.     The  natural 

i  C.  A.,  Dec.  16,  1825. 


98  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

suggestion  was,  that,  by  the  same  process  of  classi- 
fication which  was  going  on  among  the  standing 
committees,  there  should  be  more  than  one  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  Accordingly,  in  1817,  Mr. 
Wendover  of  New  York  persuaded  the  House  to 
enact  that  there  should  be  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole  for  every  three  bills,  the  Speaker  so  dis- 
tributing them  that  the  three  for  each  group  should 
be  analogous  in  nature.1  This  provision  continued 
in  the  rules  until  1860,  when  it  was  stricken  out  by 
advice  of  the  revision  committee,  which  confessed 
total  ignorance  of  its  meaning.2  In  1824  Charles 
Rich  proposed  a  long  rule  which  provided,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State 
of  the  Union,  three  so-called  Committees  of  the 
Whole  House,  one  on  public  bills,  one  on  private  or 
local  bills  favorably  reported,  and  one  on  private  or 
local  bills  adversely  reported.  Each  of  these  three 
was  to  elect  its  own  chairman.  Each,  following  its 
calendar  in  impartial  order,  was  to  take  up  subjects 
upon  motion  of  one  member  seconded  by  a  major- 
ity. The  House,  after  a  committee  had  amended 
this  proposition  by  setting  apart  Fridays  and  Sat- 
urdays for  private  bills,  seems  to  have  neglected 
it ;  but  true  lines  of  division  had  been  suggested. 
Fridays  and  Saturdays  were  given  to  private  legis- 
lation in  1826.  Rules  added  Dec.  18,  1847,  con- 
firmed a  distinction  which  seems  to  have  before 

1  C.  A.,  Dec.  19,  29,  1817.  2  C.  G.,  Mar.  15,  1860. 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  99 

existed ;  i.e.,  between  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  State  of  the  Union  for  public,  and 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  for  private 
business.  At  present  there  are  three  calendars; 
one  of  the  House,  one  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union,  and  one  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.1  The  Committee  of 
the  Whole  is  limited  to  Fridays. 

The  motion  to  go  into  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union  yet  remains,  as 
in  the  beginning,  a  standing  order  after  the  read- 
ing of  the  journal.2  This  important  committee,  as 
part  of  the  entire  system,  was  subjected  to  an  ex- 
ceedingly severe  strain  by  the  enormous  increase 
of  legislative  business  after  the  Civil  War.  Up  to 
the  time  of  that  struggle,  according  to  James  A. 
Garfield,  it  had  had  jurisdiction  over  a  large  part 
of  the  work  of  the  House.  But  thenceforward  it 
fell  into  disuse.  The  provision  that  it  should 
consider  all  appropriations  of  money  before  their 
passage,  was  evaded  by  enacting  payments  out  of 
general  funds  already  set  apart.  With  the  idea 
of  a  return  to  safe  old  methods,  the  House  cor- 
rected this  abuse  in  1874 ;  and,  in  addition,  gave 
to  the  Whole  jurisdiction  over  bills  which  dis- 
pose of  public  property.     To  duly  appreciate  this 

i  Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XIII. 

2  During  the  Fifty-third  Congress  it  could  not  he  entertained  in 
the  Morning  Hour,  a  discrimination  in  favor  of  private  business. 


100  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tardy  insertion,  let  the  reader  but  think  of  prince- 
ly public  buildings,  the  increasing  adornments  of 
growing  American  cities,  and  of  wide  government 
domains,  too  often  voted  away  with  generous  rash- 
ness.1 As  it  now  stands,  carefully  worded  by  later 
changes,  the  clause  of  the  rules  from  which  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union 
derives  its  importance  reads :  "  All  motions  or 
propositions  involving  a  tax  or  a  charge  upon  the 
people ;  all  proceedings  .touching  appropriations  of 
money,  or  bills  making  appropriations  of  money 
or  property,  or  requiring  such  appropriations  to  be 
made,  or  authorizing  payment  out  of  appropria- 
tions already  made,  or  releasing  any  liability  to  the 
United  States  for  money  or  property,  or  referring 
any  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  shall  be  first  con- 
sidered in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  ;  and  a  point 
of  order  under  this  rule  shall  be  good  at  any  time 
before  the  consideration  of  a  bill  has  commenced." 
A  chief  feature  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
has  been  ever-increasing  lack  of  time  for  revision, 
even  of  the  financial  measures  which  have  crowded 
its  docket.  Reference  to  it  has  often  meant  denial 
of  consideration.  This  very  fact,  as  will  be  shown 
later,  is  a  highly  important  check  upon  the  positive 
power  of  the  standing  committees.  Great  efforts 
to  relieve  the  pressure  have  in  the  long  run  modi- 

1  For  such  an  instance  of  careless  parliamentary  methods,  cf. 
Greeley's  "  Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life,"  230,  231. 


THE  CONTROL  BY  TIIE  HOUSE.  101 

fied  the  legislative  methods  of  the  House  in  three 
particulars.  First,  all  measures  —  very  consider- 
able in  number  and  importance  —  which  do  not 
relate  to  revenue  or  appropriations  are  excluded 
from  the  Committees  of  the  Whole.  Comparison 
of  the  calendars  for  Dec.  1,  1890,  shows  a  ratio  of 
about  five  bills  on  that  of  the  House  to  twelve  on 
that  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State 
of  the  Union.  Second,  there  is  a  tendency  to  re- 
quire a  smaller  number  of  members  for  Committees 
of  the  Whole.  As  early  as  1846  Joseph  R.  In- 
gersoll  moved  that  the  Committee  on  Rules  be 
instructed  to  inquire  into  "  the  power  and  expedi- 
ency "  of  reducing  their  quorums.  The  number 
remained  a  majority  of  the  membership  of  the 
House  until  the  Fifty -first  Congress,  when  it  was 
fixed  at  one  hundred.  The  Democrats  in  the  two 
succeeding  Congresses  returned  to  the  old  require- 
ment ;  but  the  Republicans  again  made  it  one  hun- 
dred in  1895.  Jt  is  a  letting  down  of  the  bars  by 
seventy-nine  votes,  justified,  according  to  its  advo- 
cates, by  the  necessity  of  "  doing  business." 

The  third  change  consists  in  limitations  upon 
debate.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State 
of  the  Union  has  always  been  more  especially  the 
seat  of  deliberation  than  the  House  itself.  By  the 
earliest  rules  a  Congressman  could  in  its  sessions 
talk  as  often  and  at  as  great  length  as  he  pleased 
upon  any  topic,  however  remote  from  the  subject 


102  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

in  hand ;  while  in  the  House  he  could  speak  a  sec- 
ond time  only  after  every  other  member  had  had 
a  chance,  and  a  third  only  with  leave  of  the  major- 
ity. These  simple  provisions,  which  would  to-day 
mean  intolerable  anarchy,  served  legislative  pur- 
poses for  several  decades.  Rules  in  those  times 
were  not  only  mild,  but  also  not  likely  to  be  strictly 
enforced.  For  instance,  Robert  Goodloe  Harper  in 
1794  tried,  but  failed,  to  secure  the  provision  which 
now  seems  a  matter  of  course  in  any  well  regulated 
assembly ;  to  wit,  that  no  member  should  speak 
save  to  a  motion  made,  seconded,  and  stated.  In- 
stead, the  House  provided,  under  pressure  of  busi- 
ness near  the  close  of  the  session,  that  members 
should  be  limited  to  one  speech  upon  each  subject. 
After  two  weeks  of  trial  this  restriction  was  re- 
moved by  motion  of  Harper,  upon  ground  that  it 
was  useless  because  evaded,  and  wrong  in  principle 
because  it  trenched  upon  unlimited  speech. 

It  only  needed,  however,  a  sagacious  and  un- 
scrupulous member  of  the  minority  to  take  fullest 
advantage  of  such  fine  opportunities  for  obstruc- 
tion. The  occasion  and  the  man  appeared  in  1806. 
By  1811  five  years  of  turmoil  had  wrought  out 
the  most  important  restriction  upon  debate  in  legis- 
lative history.  The  result  was  a  new  and  power- 
ful form  of  the  Previous  Question;  the  man,  John 
Randolph  of  Roanoke  ;  the  occasion,  those  troubled 
relations  with  European  powers  which  finally  re- 


THE  CONTROL  BY   THE  HOUSE.  103 

suited  in  our  second  war  with  England.  During 
the  proceedings  which  followed  upon  Randolph's 
sly  break  with  President  Jefferson,  a  main  fea- 
ture of  opposition  tactics  was  long  and  wearisome 
speech-making.1  A  year  or  two  passed  before  the 
House  found  a  bridle  for  the  eccentric  Virginian 
by  making  the  question  of  entertaining  a  motion 
undeba table.  Randolph  appealed  in  vain  against 
this  violent  gag  law.2  As  foreign  affairs  became 
more  critical,  the  need  of  further  limitation  upon 
the  power  of  an  obstructing  minority  was  more 
and  more  felt.  In  1810  occurred  a  grand  debate 
over  the  proposed  rule,  "  The  previous  question 
shall  be  put  in  this  form :  Shall  the  main  question 
be  now  put?  It  shall  only  be  admitted  when  de- 
manded by  one-fifth  of  the  members  present,  and, 
if  decided  in  the  affirmative,  shall  be  instantly  put, 
without  amendment  or  further  debate ;  but  if  de- 
cided in  the  negative,  the  business  shall  progress 
as  if  the  previous  question  had  not  been  called." 
Here,  as  in  many  others  of  these  early  discussions 
of  important  subjects,  the  arguments  pro  and  eon 
were  set  off  so  exhaustively  that  after  Congresses 
had  but  to  echo  them  more  and  more  feebly,  while 
the  question  came  slowly  to  final  adjustment.  It 
was  liberty  vs.  license  of  speech ;  rights  of  major- 

i  C.  A.,  April  21,  1806;  Schouler's  "History  of  the  United 
States,"  III.  368,  369. 
2  C.  A.,  April  1, 1808. 


104  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ity  as  against  rights  of  minority ;  debating  or  do- 
ing as  the  prime  function  of  the  House.  One  side 
made  a  scarecrow  of  Napoleon's  dumb  legislature, 
and  the  other  held  up  for  contrast  the  talking 
assembly  which  wearied  the  first  French  Republic 
to  death.  The  indistinguishable  border-ground  be- 
tween the  use  and  the  abuse  of  speech  was  com- 
pared to  the  fine  blending  of  colors  in  a  garment 
of  silk.  Peter  B.  Porter  excelled  in  pleading  for 
the  new  procedure,  and  showed  in  strong  light  the 
meaning  of  majority  responsibility  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States.1  At  about  three 
o'clock  on  the  last  February  morning  of  1811,  and 
after  an  all-night  struggle  between  supporters  and 
opposers  of  the  coming  war,  the  cloture  fastened 
itself  upon  the  House  of  Representatives,  —  as  its 
enemies  would  express  themselves,  —  unlike  Sind- 
bad's  Old  Man  of  the  Sea,  never  to  be  shaken  off.2 
Since  then  in  several  important  particulars  it  has 
strengthened  its  hold.  Not  one-fifth,  but  one  in- 
dividual only,  is  at  present  required  to  move  the 
previous  question.  By  custom  the  privilege  be- 
longs to  the  leader  who  is  said  to  be  in  charge 
of  the  floor,  the  very  personage  most  interested 
and  most  powerful  in  bringing  debate  to  an  end.3 
It  applies,  not  only  to  the  main  question,  but  to 

i  C.  A.,  Jan.  16,  1810. 

2  For  a  full  history  of  the  previous  question,  cf .  the  speech  of 
William  Gaston,  C.  A.,  Jan.  19,  1816. 
«  54: 1,  C.  R.,  5202,  5203,  May  13,  1896. 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  105 

amendments,  to  secondary  motions,  to  a  part  or 
the  whole  of  a  series  of  parliamentary  propositions. 
It  yet  demands  instantaneous  putting,  except  that 
bills  upon  which  there  has  been  no  debate  may 
have  half  an  hour's  discussion  before  their  passage. 
For  many  years  it  seems  not  to  have  affected  de- 
bate in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  two- 
thirds  requirement  for  suspension  of  the  rules,  to- 
gether with  changes  in  them,  and  new  rulings  of 
Speakers,  had,  by  1841,  made  it  exceedingly  dif- 
ficult to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  at  all. 
This  immobility  was  remedied  at  that  time  by 
making  it  in  order  for  a  mere  majority  to  suspend 
the  rules,  both  to  get  the  House  into  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  and  to  fix  definite  periods  for  the 
Committee's  sessions,  so  as  to  get  measures  back 
into  the  House.1  By  later  additions  to  the  rules, 
the  Committee  may  entertain,  after  this  closing  of 
debate,  four  five-minute  speeches  proposing  and 
combating  first  and  second  amendments.  Thus  a 
majority  can,  before  resolving  itself  into  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  decide  that  the  bill  to  be  con- 
sidered shall  be  reported  to  the  House  within 
twenty-odd  minutes.  Notwithstanding  this  power 
other  tactics  have  often  been  employed.  Before 
1860  reference  of  a  great  appropriation  bill  to 
the  Whole  was  frequently  a  time- was  ting  farce. 
Immediately  upon  getting  into  the  Committee  a 

i  C.  G.,  July  6,  7, 1841. 


106  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

spokesman  of  the  majority  would  propose  to  strike 
out  the  enacting  clause  of  the  measure.  This 
amendment,  not  being  itself  amendable,  would  be 
passed  with  two  five-minute  speeches;  the  Com- 
mittee would  then  rise  and  report  to  the  House, 
which  would  disagree  to  the  striking  out,  and,  or- 
dering the  previous  question,  put  the  bill  through 
with  a  rush.1  The  Thirty-sixth  Congress  directed 
that  a  bill  so  deprived  of  its  head  should  upon  non- 
concurrence  of  the  House  go  back  to  its  former 
place  upon  the  calendar  of  the  Whole,  and  have 
the  decapitated  member  restored.  Just  ten  years 
later  the  subtle  Greeks  of  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
as  one  of  our  classically  minded  historians  would 
style  them,  opened  a  new  avenue  towards  "  the 
rule  of  the  standing  committees  without  let  or 
hindrance."  They  persuaded  the  fitfully  migrat- 
ing Barbarians  to  allow  a  bill  reported  from  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  minus  its  enacting  clause 
to  be  sent  back  with  instructions  to  provide  a  sub- 
stitute.2 How  such  a  provision  could  be  made  to 
work  at  command  of  the  majority  Professor  Hart 
has  shown  in  his  entertaining  biography — or  obit- 
uary —  of  a  river  and  harbor  bill.3  Instead  of  a 
case  of  striking  out  the  enacting  clause,  this  is  a 
case  of  striking  out  all  after  the  enacting  clause ; 

1  In  this  way  Alexander  H.  Stephens  Drought  ahout  action 
upon  the  Kansas-Nebraska  hill,  May  22,  1854. 

2  C.  G.,  May  26,  1870;  C.  R.,  Jan.  6,  1880. 

8  Hart's  "Practical  Essays  on  American  Government." 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  107 

but  both  have  offered  practically  the  same  oppor- 
tunity for  minimizing  debate. 

To  return  to  1841,  outer  confines  having  been 
fully  established  by  the  power  of  limiting  debate 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  next  step  was  to 
set  internal  boundaries.  In  line  of  natural  succes- 
sion to  the  Previous  Question  and  Limited  Debate 
came  the  Hour  Rule.  It  followed  immediately  af- 
ter the  latter,  being  adopted  the  very  next  day.  It 
was  simply  a  decision  that  no  one  member  should 
talk  upon  a  subject  longer  than  sixty  minutes. 
Imprecations  heaped  upon  it  then  and  for  many 
years  after  might  add  glow  to  an  Indian's  war- 
paint or  terror  to  his  death-cry. 

All  these  developments  have  strengthened  the 
power  of  the  majority.  They  have  given  to  it  a 
more  effective  control  over  the  standing  and  select 
committees.  They  have  vested  in  it  the  fixing 
of  the  ratio  between  deliberation  and  action.  If 
it  desires  debate,  its  leaders  need  not  order  the 
previous  question.1  The  history  of  the  tariff 
law  of  1897  shows  that  when  these  chiefs  have 
a  harmonious    majority  at   their   back,  they  can 


i  Cf.,  incidentally,  54 : 1,  C.  RM  5202-8,  May  13, 1896 ;  a  peculiar 
and  suggestive  case,  in  which  these  leaders  filibustered  until  nine 
o'clock  at  night,  contrary  to  the  evident  desire  of  the  majority  for 
the  previous  question.  Senators  recently  worsted  by  the  House 
would  change  the  royal  title  of  its  Speaker  from  the  Great  White 
Czar  to  the  Great  White  Filibuster,  55 : 1,  C.  R.  (Senate),  April  22, 
1897. 


108  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

extend  a  "  do-nothing  policy "  into  weeks  and 
months. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the 
Union  has  come,  in  the  long  run,  from  broad  origi- 
nal jurisdiction  over  all  House  measures,  to  be  a 
secondary  stage  for  limited  consideration  of  public 
finances.  Its  field  has  been  partitioned  out,  part 
going  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  part  to  the 
House,  by  far  the  largest -share  to  the  standing  and 
select  committees.  In  1793  the  Congressman,  glan- 
cing up  into  the  galleries,  might  have  likened  it 
to  the  orator  fully  and  carefully  arrayed  to  sway 
the  multitudes ;  in  1893,  with  scarce  a  thought  for 
the  puzzled  straggler  overhead,  he  styles  it  "the 
House  in  undress  uniform,  the  House  with  its  coat 
off." 

Finally,  new  competitors  have  appeared  to  fur- 
ther reduce  the  spheres  of  the  two  Committees  of 
the  Whole,  perhaps  in  time  to  send  both  into  super- 
annuation. Of  all  the  tendencies  apparent  upon 
a  comprehensive  view,  the  most  striking  is  the 
movement  towards  a  procedure  based  upon  the 
biennial  life  of  each  House.  Deliberation  marks 
the  opening,  and  gradually  shades  off  into  the 
breathless  action  of  the  closing  hours.  When  the 
new  Congress  begins,  it  has  its  one  opportunity  for 
claiming  again  the  ancient  glory  of  debate  ;  when 
an  old  Congress  ends,  the  only  words  that  echo 
through  the  great  hall  are  Yea  and  Nay.     The  pro- 


THE  CONTROL   BY  THE  HOUSE.  109 

cess  is  from  full  discussion  of  general  policies  to 
sharp  five-minute  speeches  upon  specific  measures. 
That  criticism,  therefore,  which  avers  that  the 
power  of  the  standing  committees  is  almost  abso- 
lute because  their  measures  are  acted  upon  hastily 
as  the  final  March  day  approaches,  has  its  edge 
dulled  by  the  defense  that  action  ought  to  be  de- 
ferred until  demands  are  imperative,  so  as  to  give, 
meanwhile,  as  long  a  period  as  possible  for  delibe- 
ration. Before  the  Representative  is  required  to 
vote  upon  them,  he  has  had  in  most  cases  one,  in 
many  cases  two  sessions  and  an  interval,  for  ac- 
quainting himself  with  pending  legislative  Acts. 
Some  measures  reappear  in  Congress  after  Con- 
gress. The  reports  of  committees  are  printed,  and, 
with  their  accompanying  bills,  often  stand  upon 
the  calendar  for  months.  In  that  large  body  pri- 
vate conversation,  man  with  man,  counts  for  much 
as  a  substitute  for  public  discussion.  The  press 
and  constituents  have  ample  time  for  comment 
upon  topics  which  interest  them. 

Abuses  connected  with  a  large  scope  for  general 
debate  have  their  most  telling  illustration  in  the 
great  slavery  struggle.  Those  inflammatory  Con- 
gressional harangues  which  had  for  their  object  no 
definite  action  had  a  powerful  influence  in  prevent- 
ing reasonable  settlements  between  North  and 
South.  After  having  led  opposing  forces  in  a 
fierce  three  weeks'  quarrel  upon  the  question  of  re- 


110  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ceiving  Abolitionist  memorials,  John  Quiney  Adams 
and  Henry  A.  Wise  voted  together  against  bestow- 
ing upon  the  majority  power  to  limit  general  de- 
bate in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.1  This  strife 
over  the  adoption  of  rules  or  over  the  election  of 
officers  grew  more  and  more  violent  throughout  the 
'40's  and  '50's.  For  weeks  or  months,  at  the  be- 
ginning of  a  Congress,  the  contest  would  wage  with 
no  other  bridle  upon  vociferous  radicals  than  the 
regulations  compiled  by  British  parliamentarians 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  In  1861,  before  he 
left  the  House  to  take  part  with  the  Confederacy, 
John  H.  Reagan  declared  that  these  passionate 
wrangles  had  been  a  chief  cause  of  the  disruption 
of  the  Union. 

In  post  helium  times,  by  contrast,  the  organi- 
zation of  the  House  lias  proceeded  in  a  leisurely, 
good-humored  way  under  general  parliamentary 
law  until  rules  are  adopted.  The  Committee  on 
Rules  has  early  reported  the  usual  revision ;  and 
then  has  been  witnessed  the  splendid  biennial  field- 
day  —  or  rather  days  —  of  unlimited  debate,  the 
one  period  in  which,  as  has  been  said,  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union, 
whether  it  be  called  by  that  name  or  not,  appears 
most  completely  vested  with  its  ancient  character.2 

1  H.  J.,  July  6,  1841.  Adams  also  voted  the  next  day  against 
the  hour  rule,  hut  Wise's  name  does  not  appear. 

2  Before  the  Forty-eighth  Congress  it  had  been  the  prevailing 
custom,  barring  the  excited  contests  of  the  '40's  and  '50's,  for  a 


THE  CONTROL   BY  THE  HOUSE.  Ill 

With  delightful  freedom  of  speech  for  all,  the  pa- 
laver runs  on.  A  Representative  who  is  getting  his 
first  glimpse  of  the  labyrintlis  of  the  great  Capitol 
stands  for  the  time  equal  before  the  Speaker  with 
the  beetle-browed  old  committeeman  who  has  seen 
decades  under  the  dome.  Discussion  of  the  rules 
does  not  mean  cold  argument  over  phraseology, 
clear  reasoning  upon  scientific  legislative  methods. 
It  is  the  impassioned  utterance  of  men  newly 
gathered  together,  and  as  yet  unacquainted  with 
each  other,  but  fresh  from  constituencies  whose 
districts  completely  cover  the  broad  surface  of  the 
United  States.  It  is  the  airing-ground  where  the 
people  through  their  representatives  pass  judgment 
upon  the  Congress  which  has  gone  before,  and  ex- 
press their  desires  concerning  great  living  political 
issues  as  an  enlightenment  preliminary  to  the  for- 
mulating of  laws  by  the  committee  workers.    Usu- 

Congress  to  adopt  the  rules  of  its  predecessor  temporarily.  For  a 
time  such  action  was  regarded  as  binding.  But  the  later  Houses 
have  proceeded  under  general  parliamentary  law  —  analogous  to 
common  law  in  the  larger  field  —  until  a  satisfactory  revision 
of  former  rules  has  been  effected.  The  lengthiest  periods  of  gen- 
eral debate  upon  the  rules  since  the  codification  are  to  be  con- 
sulted in  the  Record  under  the  following  dates:  — 
47th  Congress,  Jan.  16-19,  1882. 


48th 

Feb.  7-8,  1884. 

49th 

*    Dec.  9-18,  1885. 

50th    ' 

•    Dec.  21,  1887. 

51st 

'    Feb.  10-14,  1890. 

52d     ' 

Jan.  25-Feb.  4,  1892. 

53d 

*    Aug.  29-Sept.  6,  1893. 

54th 

'    Dec.  17,  1895,  to  Jan.  10,  1896. 

112  CONGRESSIONAL  COMMITTEES. 

ally  one,  two,  or  three  changes  in  the  former  code, 
involving,  it  may  be,  the  power  of  some  committee 
whose  business  has  become  suddenly  of  first  im- 
portance, or  relating  to  the  adjustment  of  majority 
and  minority  rights,  have  constituted  the  central 
themes.  In  these  discussions  upon  the  broad  sub- 
ject of  the  State  of  the  Union,  a  large  part,  often 
the  largest  part,  of  the  talking  is  made  up  of  ran- 
dom speeches  by  the  newer  members.  The  older 
fellows  sit  back,  say  nothing,  listen.  The  new 
man  may  break  some  ice  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
complex  code  which  governs  proceedings,  but  the 
old  man  gathers  large  ideas  as  to  the  character  of 
the  complex  mass  of  membership  which  will  soon 
come  under  his  directing  and  governing  hand.  It 
has  been  a  grand  meet,  as  it  were,  where  new 
steeds  have  shown  off  their  paces  before  wise  old 
Houyhnhnms. 

Besides  the  early  period  for  free  and  easy  ex- 
change of  opinions,  others  less  extensive  appear 
here  and  there,  more  rarely  as  the  Congress  runs 
forward  in  its  devious  course.  Two  processes  bid 
fair  to  succeed  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  — 
one,  the  Special  Order  ;  the  other,  consideration  of 
a  measure  in  the  House  as  if  in  the  Whole.  About 
the  time  of  the  Forty-ninth  Congress  the  practice 
came  to  take  on  new  and  great  significance  of  fix- 
ing upon  some  particular  day  or  days,  some  time 
in  the  future,  for  exclusive  consideration  of  the 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  113 

business  of  some  committee  having  a  well-known 
and  important  measure  to  present.  Such  in  that 
body  was  the  action  upon  the  Senate  Bill  on  Po- 
lygamy and  the  Trade  Dollar  Bill.  These  special 
orders  take  business,  public  or  private,  from  any 
of  the  three  calendars,  and  assign  it  to  any  day, 
Fridays  or  Mondays  not  excluded.  They  go  into 
effect  immediately,  or  after  some  lapse  of  time.  In 
the  second  session  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress 
thirty-five  bills  were  thus  favored.  Among  them, 
as  examples  showing  the  variety,  may  be  cited 
measures  for  the  admission  of  Utah,  to  suspend 
the  tax  on  the  circulation  of  national  banks,  to 
establish  a  uniform  system  of  bankruptcy,  for 
election  of  Senators  by  a  direct  vote  of  the  people, 
for  bills  reported  from  the  Committee  on  Patents, 
for  a  contested  election  case,  for  eulogies  upon  a 
deceased  statesman,  for  resolutions  relative  to 
affaire  in  the  Hawaiian  Islands.  The  old,  rather 
rigid,  idea  of  certain  days  for  certain  kinds  of  busi- 
ness, as  seen  in  the  setting  apart,  first  of  Fridays, 
then  of  Fridays  and  Saturdays,  for  the  private 
legislation  committees,  in  the  distinction  between 
these  two  as  objection  and  consideration  days,  in 
the  giving  of  Mondays,  the  second  and  fourth  in 
each  month,  to  the  Committee  on  the  District  of 
Columbia,  the  first  and  third  to  motions  for  sus- 
pensions of  rules  by  individuals  and  by  committees, 
—  this  old  idea  has  been  undergoing  new  develop- 


114  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ments  with  reference  to  all  kinds  of  legislation. 
Usually  when  the  special  order  period  arrives,  the 
majority  and  the  minority  divide  the  time  equally 
or  equitably,  and  each  gives  control  of  its  share  to 
a  recognized  leader.  Consideration  of  a  measure 
in  the  House  as  in  the  Whole  is  like  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  in  the  freedom  of  debate,  but  differs 
in  that  the  previous  question,  a  motion  to  recon- 
sider, the  yeas  and  nays,  and  a  motion  to  adjourn 
are  admissible.1 

Before  leaving  the  subject  of  debate  as  a  method 
of  controlling  committees,  some  additional  minor 
points  ought  to  be  noticed.  Whereas  in  the  first 
House  a  member  had  a  clear  title  to  speak  twice 
in  general  debate,  he  may  now  speak  but  once ; 
save  that  the  committeeman  who  has  charge  of  the 
measure  may  open  and  close,  and  may  occupy  two 
hours  if  the  discussion  extends  over  from  one  day 
to  another.  The  tendency  is  to  delegate  increas- 
ingly the  talking  as  well  as  the  governing.2  Every 
measure  put  upon  its  passage  under  the  previous 
question  or  suspension  of  the  rules  must  have  had 
at  least  twenty  minutes  of  criticism  by  its  oppo- 


1  Cf .  resolutions  introduced  by  Messrs.  Pendleton  and  Everett, 
H.  J.,  June  10,  1842. 

2  Cf.  the  speeches  of  Messrs.  Cannon,  Dingley,  and  Wheeler, 
summarizing  the  work  of  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress  as  its  last  ses- 
sion drew  to  a  close,  C.  R.,  March,  1897;  also  the  choice  by  the 
minority  party  of  Joseph  W.  Bailey  as  its  representative  orator, 
55  :  1,  C.  R.,  April  17,  1897,  and  closing  days  of  the  session. 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  115 

sers,  if  there  be  any.1  General  debate,  that  is  free- 
dom to  wander  broadly  from  the  question  in  hand, 
is  permissible  neither  in  the  House  nor  in  a  spe- 
cial order  period.  Through  the  practice  of  offering 
and  withdrawing  pro  form a  amendments,  discussion 
is  allowed  in  the  shape  of  five-minute  speeches 
which  are  highly  praised  by  visiting  critics. 

To  reiterate  —  the  long  trend  of  development  re- 
veals a  more  accurately  and  strictly  defined  account- 
ability of  the  committees  to  the  majority  party. 
This  is  a  prominent  feature,  not  only  in  their  com- 
position, as  will  be  shown,  and  in  the  discussion 
of  their  measures,  but  along  other  important  lines. 
As  the  minority  was  driven  by  the  majority  from 
its  method  of  defeating  action  upon  committee 
reports  by  endless  talking,  it  found  yet  other 
strongholds.  Its  resistance  through  parliamentary 
tactics  has  been  more  and  more  favored  by  the 
growing  membership  and  business  of  the  House, 
and  consequent  growing  complexity  of  organiza- 
tion. From  the  loud  tam-tam  or  the  prolonged  and 
terrifying  shouts  of  the  battle  host,  it  progressed 
to  the  serried  ranks,  the  silently  pricking  bayonet, 
and  smokeless  powder.  With  the  same  purpose 
how  different  the  ways  of  John  Randolph  and 
Buckley  Kilgore  !  The  minority  filibuster,  like  the 
earlier  Quid,  has  long  since  seen  the  high  tide  of 
his   power.     At  least  he   has   retreated   into  the 

1  Rules  of  H.  of  RM  XXVIII.  3, 


116  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

committee  rooms,  where  —  as  the  committee  min- 
utes would  seem  to  show  —  he  is  yet  powerful  for 
making  the  hours  drag  monotonously  by.  Prog- 
ress on  the  whole  has  been  from  rough,  crude 
methods  of  control  to  a  procedure  more  exact  and 
expedite.  From  attempts  to  rule  its  committees 
directly  through  fixed  orders  of  business  in  the 
pure  democracy  of  the  House  or  of  the  Whole,  ne- 
cessity has  gradually  driven  the  body  to  bestow  ad- 
ministration upon  chosen  representatives,  of  whom 
the  Speaker  is  chief.  The  minority  now  brings 
its  strength  to  bear  by  appeal  to  public  opinion 
through  the  press  and  the  polls. 

Among  others  two  practices  have  stood  out  as 
highly  important  for  reining  in  the  committee 
steeds,  of  which  one  has  been  becoming  of  less,  the 
other  of  more  weight.  The  House,  in  the  first 
place,  decides  what  specific  work  shall  be  done, 
and  what  committee  shall  do  it.  Then,  when  the 
work  has  been  completed,  it  passes  judgment  upon 
the  reports.  These  two  may  be  styled  Reference 
and  Selection.  The  regulating  law  of  competition 
has  been  operating  here  with  silently  increasing 
supremacy,  as  the  committees  have  grown  in  num- 
ber, and  as  the  business  of  each  has  manifoldly  in- 
creased. Every  one  of  them  in  later  Congresses 
has  had  fifty  or  more  competitors.  In  the  records 
of  a  single  session  the  labels,  H.  R.  8053  and  S. 
2326,  indicate  that  each  bill  was  but  one  among 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  117 

ten  thousand  proposed  laws.  In  the  Fiftieth  Con- 
gress but  four  and  three-fourths  per  cent  of  all  the 
measures  introduced  passed  the  House.1  Hereto  are 
pertinent  the  lively  and  prolonged  struggles  of  com- 
mittees for  the  possession  of  particular  bills,  which 
in  later  practice  gave  place  to  exciting  contests  for 
the  floor  whenever  action  upon  the  calendars  was 
pending.  For  these  disputes  there  has  had  to  be 
arbitration ;  and  the  supreme  court  of  resort  by  un- 
alterable decree  of  the  Constitution  is  the  House 
deciding  by  majority  vote,  man  equal  with  man. 
Never  has  a  law  been  entered  upon  the  statute 
books  of  the  Federal  Government  which  has  not  at 
the  final  stage  of  its  passage  received  the  sanction 
of  a  majority  of  the  Representatives.  In  many 
cases,  by  decision  upon  secondary  motions,  this 
sanction  has  had  repeated  expression.  This  is  the 
essence  of  the  legislative  grant.  This  is  the  one 
only  part  of  the  lawmaking  process  which  in  no 
instance  of  a.  century's  history  has  been  given  to  a 
committee.  Below  this  narrow  limit  —  the  secret 
ballot,  the  division,  the  silent  procession  between 
tellers,  the  vive  voce,  or  the  yeas  and  nays  —  there 
has  been  every  possible  degree  of  legislative  power 
for  committees  all  the  way  to  the  point  of  making 
laws  without  any  commitment  whatever.2 

1  Public  Opinion,  April  12, 1894. 

2  As  late  as  the  session  of  1851-1852,  there  were  nine  or  more  in- 
stances of  action  upon  bills  without  commitment ;  see  32  : 1,  H.  J., 
Index. 


118  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

The  confidence  which  the  House  has  reposed 
in  the  committee  has  in  the  main  determined  this 
degree  of  power.  Such  is  the  limitation  which 
the  individual  committee  has  felt  more  and  more 
keenly.  Its  importance  will  he  petty  if  the  House 
does  not  bestow  upon  it  the  framing  of  important 
measures ;  its  work  will  go  for  naught  if  the  House 
refuses  to  consider  its  reports.  Thus  it  is  influ- 
enced to  present  first  those  of  its  many  measures 
which  it  believes  to  be  most  in  demand,  or  least 
likely  to  meet  with  opposition.  Its  ambition  must 
be  to  so  meet  the  views  of  the  majority  that  there 
will  be  no  amendment  or  recommitment.1  The 
smile  and  the  frown  of  the  House  are  quickly 
noted  by  sensitive  chairmen.  A  favorite  of  to-day 
may  be  thrust  down  by  the  wiles  of  another  courtier 
to-morrow.  "  The  moment  a  committee  is  ap- 
pointed which  is  not  in  accord  with  the  wishes  and 
desires  of  members,"  says  Speaker  Reed,  u  that 
moment  that  committee  is  such  an  object  of  sus- 
picion that  its  power  is  utterly  destroyed  or  lost." 
Peculiar  enemies  lie  in  wait  for  a  committee ;  the 
chairmen  of  other  committees,  the  speech-makers, 
the  amenders,  the  filibusters.2  More  than  once 
these  committee  tribulations  have  been  the  oppor- 

1  Cf.  for  an  interesting  example  an  article  on  "  The  House  of 
Representatives  and  the  House  of  Commons  "  hy  Hon.  Hilary  A. 
Herbert,  North  American  Review,  CLVIII.,267. 

2  Hart's  "Practical  Essays  on  American  Government,"  213- 
217. 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  119 

tunity  of  the  Congressional  humorist.1  As  early 
as  1835  the  chairman  of  a  committee  compared 
himself  to  "  the  man  in  the  almanack  stuck  all 
over  with  sticks."  The  fire  of  questions  which 
one  of  these  trained  managers  of  bills  undergoes 
upon  the  floor  of  the  House  is  perhaps  freer 
and  sharper  than  the  interpellation  of  the  cabinet 
spokesman  at  a  sitting  of  the  House  of  Commons. 
A  kinetic  view  of  the  two  stages  of  control,  Ref- 
erence and  Selection,  may  be  had  from  glances  at 
the  changing  visages  of  Annals,  Debates,  Globes, 
and  Records.  Of  selection  something  will  be  said 
when  the  Committee  on  Rules  is  under  considera- 
tion. Here  may  be  traced  finally  the  history  of 
the  decreasingly  important  subject  of  Reference. 
Early  in  the  nineteenth  century  the  strong  initia- 
tive of  members  in  laying  positive  and  specific 
commands  upon  the  committees  to  produce  such 
and  such  measures  was  giving  away  to  the  milder 
plan  of  directing  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the  ex- 
pediency of  enacting  this  or  that  law.  It  was  the 
beginning  of  the  modern  bill.  The  number,  va- 
riety, and  forms  of  these  latter  resolutions,  about 
1827,  might  well  amuse  a  legislator  of  to-day. 
There  were  such  floods  of  them  that  John  W. 
Taylor,  then  beginning  his  eighth  Congressional 
term,  was  constrained  to  sigh  for  the  good  old 

1  Cf.  speeches  of  R.  G.  Horr,  C.  R.,  Jan.  15,  1880;  S.  S.  Cox, 
C.  R.,  Jan.  22,  1880;  J.  M.  Allen,  C.  R.,  Jan.  28,  1892. 


120  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

times  when  it  was  "  believed  that  committees  had 
some  little  share  of  intelligence,"  and  when  they 
were  not  "  dealt  with  as  if  they  really  had  not  an 
idea  of  their  own." 1  In  the  instructing  process 
the  House  had  that  early  passed  from  the  manda- 
tory to  the  advisory  attitude  towards  its  commit- 
tees. There  was  then,  and  for  a  long  time  after, 
much  dispute  and  consumption  of  time  as  to  where 
a  resolution,  bill,  or  petition  should  go.  As  has 
been  said,  this  was  an  important  part  of  the  con- 
trol exercised  over  committees,  since  it  was  in  the 
nature  of  a  preliminary  deliberation  and  decision, 
and  in  its  issue  indicated  which  committee  stood 
highest  in  the  confidence  of  the  House.  Nowa- 
days each  Representative,  if  we  may  infer  from  his 
after  proceedings,  travels  up  to  the  Capitol  with  a 
Saratoga  trunk  or  two  specially  devoted  to  embryo 
laws.  A  member  introducing  a  bill  has  the  advan- 
tage, if  the  committee  to  which  it  is  sent  does  not 
report,  of  presenting  it  again  for  reference  to  some 
other  committee.  Much  is  to  be  commended  in 
the  fact  that  forty  or  fifty  bills  relating  to  the 
same  subject  frequently  go  to  a  committee,  and 
are  framed  into  one  by  combination  of  what  is  best 
in  all.     It  is  now  the  duty  —  doubtless  a  tedious 

1  C.  A.,  Dec.  19,  1827;  an  editorial  in  the  National  Intelli- 
gencer of  Dec.  11,  1821,  comments  upon  this  custom  as  "  a  salu- 
tary practice,  the  abolition  of  which  would  he  to  narrow  the  range 
of  free  inquiry,  and  substitute  the  pleasure  of  a  majority  of  the 
House  for  the  rights  of  the  individual  members." 


THE  CONTROL  BY  THE  HOUSE.  121 

one  —  of  the  Speaker  and  of  the  Clerk  to  assign 
to  committees  these  papers  as  they  fall  into  the 
boxes  which  historian  Schouler  likens  to  Chinese 
prayer-wheels.  Wrangling  over  the  possession  of 
them,  if  there  be  any,  must  come  at  later  stages  of 
their  journeys.  This  waning  importance  of  Refer- 
ence and  waxing  importance  of  Selection  may  be 
accounted  for  by  coupling  together  increase  of 
membership  and  business  with  the  fixed  Constitu- 
tional provision  for  absolute  equality  and  majority 
rule  in  final  voting  decisions.  With  the  increas- 
ing intensity  of  the  struggle,  minor  vantage  points 
have  been  abandoned.  The  supremely  critical 
stage  in  legislation,  the  acceptance  or  rejection  by 
the  House  of  committee  propositions,  is  the  rally- 
ing center  for  contending  majority  and  minority, 
contending  sections  and  sections,  contending  com- 
mittees and  committees. 


The  examination  and  appraisement  of  the  institutions  of  the 
United  States  is  no  doubt  full  of  instruction  for  Europe,  full  of 
encouragement,  full  of  warning ;  hut  its  chief  value  lies  in  what 
may  he  called  the  laws  of  political  biology  which  it  reveals,  the 
new  illustrations  and  enforcements  it  supplies  of  general  truths  in 
social  and  political  science,  some  of  which  were  perceived  long 
ago  by  Plato  and  Aristotle,  but  might  have  been  forgotten  had 
not  America  poured  a  stream  of  new  light  upon  them. 

James  Bryce. 


CHAPTER   V. 

SELECT   AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES. 

Our  American  legislative  system  is  the  unfold- 
ing expression  of  the  first  principles  of  politics. 
There  is  a  creation,  a  growth,  a  parallel  develop- 
ment of  distinct  members  and  of  one  connected 
whole.  From  simple  and  unnoticed  beginnings  it 
expands  with  an  individuality  of  its  own  into  a 
complex  organism.  It  yields  in  the  fullness  to 
which  it  has  come  to  that  same  deep  study  which 
has  traced  lines  of  order  in  the  green-garbed  earth 
of  Linnaeus,  from  rootlet  of  grass  to  crowning  tree- 
leaf ;  or  in  the  process  whereby  an  innocent  child 
becomes  a  matured  soul,  with  grouping  of  good 
and  evil  traits  into  one  sum  of  character;  or  in 
many  another  complex  evolvement.  If  scientists 
discover  divinely  predetermined  plans  or  laws  in 
the  evolution  of  animal  species,  why  not  in  the 
finer,  higher  expansions  of  human  governments? 
Drummond  might  have  traced  a  natural  law  in 
the  political  as  well  as  in  the  spiritual  world. 

One  after  another  the  standing  committees  ap- 
pear, as  one  after  another  white  stars  crowd  into  the 

123 


124  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

blue  field  of  the  nation's  flag.  From  the  chaos  of  the 
beginning,  from  the  nebular  dust  of  scattered  busi- 
ness, select  committees  group  themselves  into  huge 
growing  nuclei,  the  first  standing  committees, which, 
spinning  more  and  more  rapidly,  begin  to  throw  off 
new  spheres,  other  standing  committees,  and  mean- 
while multitudinous  relations  appear  of  light,  of 
heat,  of  rotation,  of  revolution,  of  gravitation. 

Business  of  the  earlier  Houses  went  to  hosts  of 
select  committees.  At  least  three  hundred  and 
fifty  were  raised  in  the  Third  Congress.  A  special 
committee  had  to  be  formed  for  every  petty  claim. 
A  bill  founded  on  the  report  of  one  small  com- 
mittee had  to  be  recommitted  to,  or  carefully 
drafted  by,  yet  another  committee.  But  the  de- 
cline in  the  number  of  these  select  committees  was 
strikingly  rapid.  In  twenty  years,  at  the  Congress 
of  1813-1815  with  its  three  war  sessions,  it  had 
fallen  to  about  seventy.  The  reduction  was  by  half 
to  thirty-five  in  1833-1835.  There  were  twenty- 
two  at  the  Thirty-third,  and  twenty  at  the  Forty- 
third  Congress.  Recently  the  number  does  not 
exceed  a  dozen  for  a  Congress,  and  is  often  much 
smaller.  As  the  converse  of  the  process  has  been 
the  comparatively  slow  increase  of  standing  com- 
mittees. There  were  half  a  dozen  when  the  cen- 
tury began ;  ten  in  1810  ;  twenty  in  1816 ;  thirty 
in  1831 ;  forty  in  1865  ;   fifty  in  1893.1 

i  See  Appendix  I. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.   125 

Statistics  of  increase  in  the  membership  of  com- 
mittees are  also  noteworthy.  From  haphazard 
variety  in  sizes,  the  process  has  been  towards  abso- 
lute uniformity  and  then  again  to  a  certain  stable 
variety.  Owing  partly  to  the  difficulties  of  ballot- 
ing, select  committees  during  the  first  session  of 
the  First  Congress  were  limited  mainly  to  three 
members.  Occasionally  at  first  even  numbers  were 
named,  but  the  odd  soon  came  to  prevail.  Standing 
committees,  with  brief  exceptions  as  to  the  Ways 
and  Means  and  the  Post>-Offices  and  Post-Roads, 
consisted  of  seven  and  three  until  the  new  congres- 
sional apportionment  of  the  fifth  census  brought  an 
increase  of  most  to  nine  and  five  members.  These 
remained  the  largest  for  thirty -five  years,  until  on 
motion  of  Robert  C.  Schenck  the  Pacific  Railroads 
was  advanced  to  thirteen.  From  that  occasion  on- 
ward, increase  in  the  size  of  the  House  has  been 
but  a  minor  influence  working  with  others  more 
powerful  to  break  up  the  uniformity  and  to  greatly 
enlarge  many  committees.  Their  membership  now 
ranges  through  all  the  odd  numbers  from  three  to 
seventeen,  and  propositions  to  make  some  yet  lar- 
ger have  had  lusty  support.  Now  and  then  the 
membership  of  a  standing  committee  is  tempora- 
rily augmented  to  secure  the  counsel  of  certain 
able  Representatives  or  for  other  passing  cause. 

This  double  process  of  increase  has  shown  some 
halting,  but  few  backward,  steps.     Upon  two  or 


126  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

three  occasions  certain  committees  have  had  their 
sizes  decreased.  While  some  have  almost  entirely 
lost  their  original  functions,  but  three  have  been 
abolished, — the  Engraving,  the  Freedmen's  Affairs, 
and  the  Public  Expenditures.  A  statesman  sug- 
gested not  long  ago  that,  with  the  reduction  of  the 
war  debt  and  the  solution  of  other  financial  prob- 
lems arising  out  of  the  Civil  War,  revenue  and 
appropriations  might  be  reunited  under  one  com- 
mittee ;  but  there  is  no  prospect  of  such  a  course. 
The  first  proposition  to  divide  a  standing  committee 
was  made  in  1810,  nine  years  before  its  accom- 
plishment. John  Slidell  anticipated  the  Coinage, 
Weights,  and  Measures  twenty  years  in  his  sug- 
gestion for  a  Committee  on  Coinage  and  Currency.1 
Much  bitterness  arose  in  1847  over  a  motion  for  a 
Committee  on  the  Smithsonian  Institute,  which  was 
vigorously  supported  by  Andrew  Johnson.  Other 
such  abortive  proposals  have  sought  to  establish 
committees  on  "  Public  Health,"  "  Epidemic  Dis- 
eases," "Admission  to  the  Floor,"  "The  Ameri- 
can Isthmus,"  "Constitutional  Amendments." 

The  words  standing  and  select  as  applied  to  the 
House  committees  have  taken  on  additional  or 
different  meanings  with  the  evolution  of  legis- 
lative methods.  To  make  this  clear  we  shall  need, 
besides  their  growth,  to  consider:  (1)  The  man- 
ner of  appointing  the  committees ;  (2)  Their  divis- 

i  C.  G.,  Jan.  29,  1841. 


SELECT  AND  STANDING   COMMITTEES.   127 

ion  and  subdivision  as  connected  with  the  business 
of  Congress ;  (3)  The  length  of  their  existence ; 
(4)  Their  composition  as  to  stability  and  party 
representation. 

The  first  session  of  the  first  House  vested  the 
appointment  of  small  committees  of  three  or  less 
in  the  Speaker ;  and  the  second  session,  on  motion 
of  Richard  Bland  Lee  of  Virginia,  extended,  his 
privilege  as  to  all  committees,  large  and  small,  un- 
less the  House  should  order  otherwise.1  Colonial 
precedents  for  this  course  abounded.2  It  was  an 
entering  wedge  upon  older  customs  of  motion  and 
ballot.  The  House  has  always  retained  the  power 
of  determining  the  sizes  of  its  committees.  Until 
the  hurried  times  of  Speaker  Grow  the  standing 
committees  were  never  appointed  without  a  special 
resolution  conferring  that  authority.  The  few 
cases  in  which  resort  has  been  had  to  the  ballot 
have  been  those  of  select  committees  when,  upon 
some  suddenly  sprung  question,  the  Speaker  has 
been  found  to  hold  sentiments  at  variance  with 
those  of  the  majority,  most  notably  when  he  has 
shown  himself  at  outs  or  in  accord  with  the  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States  as  against  the  House 
which  has  chosen  him  as  its  Premier.  Upon  these 
occasions   the   Representatives   have   advanced   a 

1  C.  A.,  Jan.  13, 1790. 

2  See  above,  Chapter  I. ;  Jefferson's  Mannal,  Section  xxi., 
Clause  1;  fly-leaf  rules  in  Maclay's  Journal. 


128  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

specious  argument  with  a  touch  of  irony  in  it,  — 
the  selection  by  ballot  relieves  the  Speaker  of  an 
unpleasant  duty,  and  saves  him  from  disagreeable 
imputations !  This  was  the  only  plea  for  the  bal- 
lot made  by  Randolph's  minority  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Tenth  Congress.  Out  of  one  hundred  and 
eleven  who  voted  then,  eighty-seven  approved  of  the 
judgment  that  the  Speaker  would  feel  his  responsi- 
bility and  be  cautious  in  the  choice,  while  the 
secret  ballot  would  be  largely  irresponsible,  difficult 
and  tedious  in  so  large  a  body,  accidental  as  to  secur- 
ing fit  men,  especially  since  there  were  many  new 
Representatives  who  could  not  choose  intelligently. 
James  Sloan,  who  had  vigorously  urged  a  return  to 
the  ballot  a  few  months  before,  was  now  in  favor 
of  the  established  method,  and  merely  suggested  his 
belief  that  the  two  or  three  more'  important  com- 
mittees might  better  be  chosen  by  the  House.  The 
critical  test  came,  however,  when  the  next  Con- 
gress opened.  Matthew  Lyon  and  Barent  Garde- 
nier  again  urged  the  ballot.  It  was  more  respect- 
ful to  the  nation,  they  argued ;  members  so  chosen 
were  more  likely  to  feel  their  responsibility  to  the 
House  ;  ours  is  a  government  based  upon  the  rule 
of  the  many.  This  decisive  division  discovered 
sixty-seven  for  and  forty-one  against  the  choice 
by  the  Speaker.  In  recent  times  outsiders  have 
advocated  other  plans.  Perhaps  the  only  intelli- 
gent  and  noteworthy  substitute  proposed    by    a 


SELECT  AND  STANDING   COMMITTEES.   129 

Representative  has  been  that  of  Godlove  S.  Orth, 
a  member  of  long  standing  and  recognized  ability. 
In  1882  he  proposed  that  a  standing  board  of 
eleven  be  chosen  by  party  caucuses,  and  vested 
with  the  nomination  of  all  committees.  In  the 
Speaker,  said  he,  was  a  one-man  power  of  vast 
proportions  ;  from  his  fiat  in  assignments  there  was 
no  appeal ;  the  Congressional  destiny,  prominence 
or  obscurity,  of  every  newly  arrived  Represen- 
tative was  absolutely  at  his  disposal ;  he  could  so 
constitute  any  particular  committee  as  to  imperil 
the  great  interests  with  which  it  might  be  charged ; 
a  board  need  not  take  more  time  than  did  he  in 
organizing  the  House,  since  he  was  never  known 
to  accomplish  the  task  in  less  than  two  weeks 
time.  Thomas  B.  Reed  replied,  ridiculing  such  a 
scheme  for  putting  the  Speakership  in  commission 
to  a  log-rolling  body  which  must  favor  itself  with 
fine  places,  or  follow  the  rare  historic  example  of 
the  self-denying  ordinance.  The  unanswerable 
argument  of  Mr.  Reed  and  of  others  was  the  ap- 
peal to  the  long  century  in  which  the  established 
plan  had  proved  workable  with  the  Speakership 
fixed  in  an  ever-growing  structure  as  the  corner- 
stone whose  removal  must  mean  ruinous  collapse.1 

1  The  appointment  of  a  standing  committee  by  a  Speaker  pro 
tern  occurred  Dec.  7,  1843.  The  seat  of  John  W.  Jones,  who  had 
been  chosen  Speaker,  happened  to  be  contested  ;  hence  he  asked 
to  be  relieved  from  appointing  the  Committee  on  Elections. 
Samuel  Bearsley  of  New  York  made  the  selection.    John  Quincy 


130  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Custom  has  quietly  limited  the  Speaker's  power 
to  harm  or  to  help  along  many  lines  which  his 
critics  have  failed  to  see. 

One  other  way  has  several  times  been  suggested 
for  the  avoidance  of  partisanship,  or  rather  the  will 
of  the  majority  party,  in  the  decision  of  contested 
election  cases,  —  namely,  the  choice  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Elections  by  lot.  Cyrus  King,  of  Massa- 
chusetts, sought  the  adoption  of  this  plan  in  1813. 
James  Graham,  of  North  Carolina,  urged  it  very 
persistently  in  1838-1840.  As  a  curious  feature, 
Graham  proposed  to  make  the  selection  from  a  list 
composed  of  one  member  from  each  State ;  namely, 
those  Representatives  who  had  received  the  lar- 
gest popular  majorities  in  the  various  common- 
wealths. Reliance  upon  chance  in  the  American 
Congress,  by  happy  contrast  with  the  organization 
of  European  legislatures,  has  found  no  successful 
advocacy.1  The  only  instance  of  the  lot  is  in  the 
choice  of  seats,  and  that  would  well  be  superseded 
by  some  such  intelligent  planning  as  that  of  the 
Massachusetts  legislature. 

Corollary  to  the  subject  of  the  appointment  of 
a  committee  is  the  question :  How  shall  its  chair- 
man be  chosen?     Nov.  20-23,  1804,  the  House 


Adams  asserts  that  the  hallot  was  avoided  because  the  House  was 
packed  with  a  view  to  the  use  of  that  method.  Memoirs,  XI., 
446. 

i  Cf.  for  other  schemes,  C.  G.,  Dec.  13,  19,  1849. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING    COMMITTEES.   131 

decreed  that  the  Speaker  should  decide  by  the 
order  in  which  he  should  name  members,  not  only 
the  chairmanship,  but  also  the  succession  to  the 
office  in  case  of  a  contingency.  However,  the 
right  of  choosing  its  own  head  was  reserved  to 
any  committee  so  disposed.  Speaker  Macon  hav- 
ing deposed  John  Randolph  from  the  headship  of 
the  Ways  and  Means,  that  committee  would  not 
recognize  the  change.1  For  some  years  committee- 
men were  named  upon  the  lists  alternately  from 
the  Democrats  and  the  Whigs.  This  caused  an 
awkward  predicament  in  1835,  when  Edward  Ev- 
erett was  deprived  of  the  right  of  succession  to 
first  place  on  the  Foreign  Affairs.  Such  a  diffi- 
culty could  not  now  arise,  since  names  from  the 
ruling  party  all  precede  those  from  the  minorities. 

Other  reasons  may  be  added  here  for  the  pre- 
viously suggested  choice  of  the  Speaker  by  the  na- 
tion at  large.  Those  fierce  and  protracted  contests 
for  the  Speakership  which  have  occasionally  wasted 
months  of  costly  time  might  by  such  a  change  be 
provided  against;  the  Speaker  would  have  more 
than  a  year  in  which  by  correspondence,  travel, 
and  personal  interview  to  learn  the  desires  of  the 
people  as  well  as  the  wishes  and  qualifications  of 
Representatives,  and  to  satisfy  the  latter  as  to 
what  lines  of  work  would  be  assigned  to  them. 

The  process  of  division  and  subdivision  in  the 

1  Remarks  of  Stephenson  Archer,  C.  G.,  Jan.  21,  1835. 


132  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

committee  system  springs  from  logical  analysis  of 
the  business  which  comes  to  the  House  under  the 
Constitution.1  As  the  sphere  of  Congress  has 
broadened  with  looser  construction  of  the  funda- 
mental law,  new  committees  have  been  added  to 
those  older  ones  whose  functions  were  written  un- 
mistakably within  the  original  charter.  These 
stand  for  powers,  the  implication  of  which  would 
have  been  denied  by  the  great  majority  of  Ameri- 
cans when  the  government  was  young.  Though 
they  indeed  set  a  precedent  when  they  entered 
upon  the  pages  of  their  sacred  document  the  name 
of  the  Speaker,  who  may  be  styled  the  first,  last, 
and  all-comprehensive  Committee  of  One,  the  most 
farseeing  of  the  Constitution's  framers  could  not 
have  dreamed  of  such  a  result  as  the  present  stand- 
ing-committee system.  In  it  Americans  of  to-day 
plainly  discern  the  inevitable  extra-Constitutional 
growth  which  corresponds  at  one  extreme  of  the 
government  to  the  huge  machinery  of  party  con- 
ventions and  committees  at  the  other. 

Very  naturally  two  or  three  of  those  persistent 
Revolutionary  claims  or  petitions  coming  in  on  the 
same  day  would  in  the  First  and  Second  Congresses 
be  referred  to  one  committee,  so  saving  the  trouble 

1  For  a  jocular  speech  setting  forth  occasional  illogical  devel- 
opments, cf.  remarks  of  Representative  Horr,  C.  R.,  Dec.  20, 1883. 
He  would  divide  the  Ways  and  Means  into  two,  one  on  Ways  and 
the  other  on  Means. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING    COMMITTEES.    133 

and  time  of  constituting  two  or  three.  Very  nat- 
urally, also,  certain  men  surpassing  others  in  deal- 
ing with  this  kind  of  work  got  their  names  familiar 
in  the  raising  of  select  committees  on  claims.  The 
duration  of  some  committees  gradually  lengthened, 
and  the  positions  of  the  able  men  became  more  se- 
cure. In  this  way  came  the  standing  Committee 
on  Claims  in  the  Third  Congress.  In  this  way, 
generally,  standing  committees  have  grown  out  of 
select  committees.  The  movement  was  helped  by 
imitation  of  parent  legislative  bodies  in  the  Estab- 
lishment of  the  Elections,  the  Enrolled  Bills,  the 
Commerce  and  Manufactures,  the  Ways  and  Means. 
A  longer  or  shorter  time  of  probation  has  often 
preceded  the  admission  of  a  committee  into  the 
standing  sisterhood.  The  Foreign  Affairs  existed 
continuously  as  a  select  committee  for  fifteen  years 
before  its  name  was  entered  upon  the  code  of  rules. 
So  of  each  of  the  six  last  added,  one  of  which 
has  been  practically  a  standing  committee  for 
twenty-seven  years.  So  of  the  joint  committee  on 
the  Library,  which  first  appeared  April  25,  1800. 
Most  of  the  fifty-seven  which  are  now  raised  reg- 
ularly for  each  Congress  have  had  select  proto- 
types at  irregular  intervals  all  the  way  back  to  the 
beginning  of  the  government.  Only  six  or  eight 
Congresses,  those  of  earlier  days,  failed  to  raise 
committees  on  rules.  Occasionally  a  select  com- 
mittee   has   run  through  several    Congresses  and 


134  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

then  disappeared.  Certain  others  are  rather  com- 
etary,  as  when  the  census  and  the  reapportionment 
trouble  Congress  once  in  each  decade.  Regularly 
at  the  beginnings  and  ends  of  sessions  two  Sena- 
tors and  three  Representatives,  the  sages  of  each 
House,  unite  in  a  visit  to  the  President,  having 
been  honored  with  the  trust  of  telling  him  that 
Congress  has  met  and  awaits  his  communications, 
or  that,  having  finished  its  work,  it  is  ready  to  ad- 
journ. Three  committees,  the  Accounts,  the  Mile- 
age, and  the  Printing,  have  been  charged  with 
duties  which  were  at  first  and  for  a  long  time  per- 
formed by  the  Clerk  of  the  House,  the  Sergeant- 
at-Arms,  and  the  Speaker.  Besides  these  origins, 
a  standing  committee  has  occasionally  been  delib- 
erately divided.  The  first  instance  occurred  in 
1819-1820  upon  the  separation  of  those  three  im- 
portant industrial  subjects,  —  Commerce,  Manu- 
factures, and  Agriculture.  Pensions  and  Revolu- 
tionary Claims  were  constituted  as  two  in  1825. 
The  most  noted  case  occurred  at  the  close  of  the 
Civil  War,  when  financial  affairs,  of  which  the 
ancient  Ways  and  Means  had  hitherto  had  sole 
charge,  were  shared  with  three  new  committees. 

Because  of  the  rapid  changes  so  characteristic 
of  American  history  the  determination  of  the  bus- 
iness province  of  each  committee  has  been  attended 
with  constant  difficulty.  Representatives  have  be- 
moaned the  waste  of  their  time  in  such  disputes. 


SELECT  AND  STANDING   COMMITTEES.   135 

Senators  have  prided  themselves  on  the  fact  that 
they  avoid  such  troubles  by  fixing  no  hard  and 
fast  lines  of  reference  in  their  rules,  but  theirs  has 
been  a  smaller  and  more  leisurely  body.1  From 
bulky  clauses  in  the  earlier  rules  the  duties  of  a 
House  committee  have  come  to  be  denned  now  by 
an  average  dozen  words.2  Now  and  then  a  change 
in  the  name  of  a  committee,  as  that  of  Revisal  and 
Unfinished  Business  to  Revisal  of  the  Laws,  has 
been  significant  of  alteration  in  its  sphere.  The 
committees  may  be  classed  into  groups  by  a  gen- 
eral view  of  their  relations.  Six  pertaining  to 
private  legislation,  nine  which  are  slumbering 
watch-dogs  of  Executive  expenditures,  and  three 
for  joint  affairs  with  the  Senate,  have  some  treat- 
ment elsewhere.  Here  will  be  dealt  with  more 
especially  the  one  great  executive  or  administra- 
tive committee  of  the  seven  which  relate  to  the 
mechanics  of  lawmaking,  the  Rules,  and  the  thirty- 
two  to  which  the  framing  of  public  legislation  is 
intrusted.  These  latter  fall  under  seven  heads  : 
of  Finance,  of  Industry,  of  Public  Property,  of 
War,  of  Law,  of  Social,  of  International  Affairs.8 
Lastly  in  the  expansion  has  come  the  sub-com- 
mittee. Its  importance  is  a  development  of  post 
helium  conditions.    To  the  full  committee  it  stands 


1  Cf.  remarks  of  John  Sherman  in  Senate,  C.  R.,  Dec.  13, 1871. 

2  Cf.  Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XI. 
»  See  Appendix  II. 


136  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

in  relations  similar  to  those  which  the  full  com- 
mittee sustains  towards  the  House.  It  is  the  in- 
ner circle  of  an  inner  circle.  It  has  majority  and 
minority  composition.  From  duties  clerical  in  the 
case  of  the  Elections,  as  the  taking  of  testimony 
from  witnesses,  it  has  come  to  report  directly  to 
the  House  and  not  at  all  to  the  full  committee. 
The  Elections  was  one  of  the  earliest  to  be  thus 
segregated  into  five  sub-committees  of  three.  The 
Fifty-fourth  Congress  provided  three  Committees 
on  Elections.  Appropriation  bills,  with  which  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  is  charged,  are  dis- 
tributed among  seven  sub-divisions  of  four  and 
five  members  each.  The  five  sub-committees  of 
the  Ways  and  Means  in  the  Fifty-first  Congress 
were  those  on  The  Public  Debt,  Funding  and 
Payment  Thereof,  Revenue  Provisions  and  Com- 
mercial Treaties,  Amendments  of  Customs  Laws, 
Amendments  of  Internal  Revenue  Laws,  Relief 
Bills  and  Claims.  Those  announced  by  Chairman 
Babcock  for  the  District  of  Columbia  in  the  Fifty- 
fourth  Congress  were :  Judiciary;  Ways  and  Means; 
Education  Labor,  and  Charities ;  Street  Railways, 
Streets  and  Avenues  ;  Steam  Railways  ;  Incorpora- 
tions. Private  legislation  sub-committees  are  geo- 
graphical ;  that  is,  each  has  jurisdiction  over  claims 
which  originate  in  a  certain  district  of  the  United 
States.  Thus,  with  the  narrowing,  almost  disap- 
pearing power  of   the  individual  Representative 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.   137 

upon  the  House  "floor  has  come  in  many  instances 
by  inverse  ratio  vast  increase  of  his  influence  in 
committees.  In  1882  each  of  the  thirteen  leading 
committees  had  from  fifteen  to  fifty  bills  per 
committeeman.1 

Shall  the  Congressional  business  be  resumed 
with  the  stage  at  which  it  had  arrived  when  we 
adjourned  in  September  last,  or  shall  it  be  taken 
up  de  novo?  This  question  puzzled  the  House 
upon  its  reassembling  in  January,  1790.  Upon  its 
decision  depended  for  the  next  seventy  years  the 
duration  of  standing  committees.  In  the  former 
alternative  they  would  last  throughout  the  Con- 
gress ;  in  the  latter,  only  through  what  is  now 
known  as  a  session.  The  practices  of  the  Virginia 
and  Pennsylvania  Assemblies  were  cited  to  uphold 
the  one  and  the  other  of  these  methods.  With  the 
House  of  Burgesses  was  thrown  into  the  scale 
the  British  House  of  Commons  ;  and  these  two,  to- 
gether probably  with  the  age  distrust  of  power, 
decided  for  the  case  de  novo.  While  committees 
were  renamed  once  or  twice  biennially  until  the 
substitution  in  1860  of  "  Congress  "  for  "session" 
in  the  clause  which  fixed  their  time  limit,  all  ten- 
dencies went  towards  the  nullifying  of  this  early 
decision.  At  the  first  session  of  the  Fifth  Con- 
gress, the  committee  on  the  impeachment  of  Wil- 
liam Blount  was  directed  to  sit  during  the  interval, 

i  C.  R.,  Jan.  17,  1882. 


138  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

collect  evidence,  and  report  at  the  second  session. 
As  the  standing  committees  increased,  the  custom 
arose  of  referring  en  bloc  to  them  their  several  por- 
tions of  unfinished  business,  a  formality  finally  ob- 
viated by  standing  orders.1  Perhaps  the  first  clear 
indication  that  the  reappointment  of  committees  at 
the  beginning  of  a  second  or  of  a  subsequent  ses- 
sion had  become  a  mere  matter  of  filling  vacancies, 
is  to  be  distinguished  in  the  action  of  Speaker 
Robert  C.  Winthrop  in  1849.2  With  the  advent 
of  long  terms  of  six  years  for  such  Speakers  as 
Colfax,  Blaine,  Randall,  and  Carlisle,  the  compo- 
sition of  committees  has  tended  strongly  to  a 
duration  beyond  single  Congresses.  Though  com- 
mittee work  may  continue  to  the  very  closing 
hours  of  a  Congress,  its  beginning  is  necessarily 
delayed  by  the  choice  of  officers,  the  revision  of 
rules,  and  the  great  labor  of  the  Speaker  in  mak- 
ing out  the  committee  lists. 

At  the  special  sessions  during  James  G.  Blaine's 
premiership,  he  refused  to  appoint  all  save  a  few 
of  the  committees  until  the  regular  sessions  should 
begin.    His  example  has  been  followed  by  Speaker 


i  C.  A.,  Dec.  12,  1796;  Mar.  17,  1818;  Dec.  13,  1819;  Mar.  15, 
1860. 

2  Note,  however,  the  National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  12,  1825: 
"The last  chairmen  of  all  the  principal  committees  (they  being 
now  members)  are  the  same  as  at  the  last  session,  except  one; 
and  that  one  (Mr.  Crowninshield)  is  understood  to  have  been 
transferred  with  his  own  consent." 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.   139 

Reed  in  1897.  The  preparation  of  a  tariff  bill  by 
the  Ways  and  Means  of  the  Fifty-fourth,  and  its 
presentation  upon  the  first  day  of  the  Fifty-fifth 
Congress,  as  also  the  introduction  of  the  General 
Deficiency  Bill  which  had  failed  in  the  Fifty-fourth 
because  of  a  Senate  amendment,  are  suggestive  of 
the  trend  of  the  House  toward  continuity.1 

Stability  of  committee  positions  depends  upon 
various  circumstances.  There  is  the  geographi- 
cal element,  State  representation,  as  heretofore  ex- 
ploited. Prominent  committeemen  are  called  to 
executive  trusts.  The  ups  and  downs  of  parties, 
besides  their  relegations  to  private  life,  cause  con- 
siderable shifting  of  members  from  one  committee 
to  another,  though  the  man  of  marked  ability  often 
securely  weathers  all  changes.  Thomas  B.  Reed 
has  been  a  member  of  the  Rules  for  eighteen 
consecutive  years.  Upon  the  same  committee  Gar- 
field served  ten  years,  and  Randall  twenty.  Abil--. 
ity  has  brought  long  enduring  honors  even  in  the 
case  of  the  chairmanships,  which  now  never  fail  to 
change*  with  change  of  party  control.  In  early 
days  it  made  not  so  much  difference  if  a  chair- 
man were  occasionally  from  the  minority,  though 
on  this  head  Speaker  Barbour  showed  the  partisan 

1  55:1,  C.  R.,  9,  10,  Mar.  15,  1897.  A  noteworthy  innovation 
is  the  law  enacted  hy  the  Fifty-third  Congress,  which  provides 
that  the  Speaker  of  one  Congress  shall  appoint  a  Committee  on 
Accounts  from  the  members  elect  to  the  next  Congress  to  serve 
during  the  interval  before  the  meeting  of  the  new  House. 


140  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

temper  in  1821. 1  Perhaps  the  latest  instance  of 
the  kind  is  that  of  Samuel  J.  Randall,  who,  nnder 
Republican  rule,  was  in  1883  last  chief  of  the 
unimportant  Public  Expenditures.  For  long  ser- 
vice as  chairman  the  palm  is  carried  off  by  a  man 
whose  name  has  been  buried  in  the  secret  com- 
mittee room,  Thomas  Newton  of  Virginia,  for 
nineteen  years  head  of  the  Committee  on  Com- 
merce. Next  after  him  comes  John  Quincy  Adams, 
self-sacrificing  Puritan,  draining  the  bitterness  of 
distasteful  destiny  for  thirteen  years  amidst  the 
turmoil  and  dust  of  the  Manufactures.2  Follow- 
ing these  are  two  with  records  each  of  twelve 
years,  —  Lewis  Williams  of  North  Carolina  on  the 
Claims,  and  Elihu  B.  Washburne  of  Illinois  on  the 
Manufactures,  —  delightful  characters,  Fathers  of 
the  House.  William  Findley  of  Pennsylvania,  in 
the  beginning  of  the  century,  was  first  on  the  Elec- 
tions for  ten  years.  In  our  own  times  Richard  P. 
Bland  on  the  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures,  and 
William  H.  Hatch  on  the  Agriculture,  both  of  Mis- 
souri, had  a  decade  of  contemporaneous  service. 
Upon  the  District  of  Columbia,  Joseph  Kent  of 
Maryland,  and  upon  the  Indian  Affairs,  John  Bell 
of  Tennessee,  each  had  four  Congresses  and  a  half. 
Below  this  list  are  twelve  who  have  headed  com- 


1  Schouler's  "  History  of  United  States,"  III.,  245. 

2  Vide  his  complaints:  "Memoirs,"  VIII.,  433,  437-557;  IX., 
48;  XI.,  34,  36. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.   141 

mittees  for  eight ;  six,  for  seven ;  thirty-four  for 
six  years  respectively.  Of  the  nine  with  longest 
service,  six  belong  to  the  period  before,  three  to 
the  period  during  and  after,  the  Civil  War.  The 
seven-year  list  is  confined  entirely  to  times  preced- 
ing 1861.  But  of  the  forty-six  with  chieftainships 
of  three  and  four  Congresses,  thirty-three  belong 
to  the  flourishing  years  of  the  victorious  Union. 
To  their  names  should  be  added  that  of  Thaddeus 
Stevens,  for  four  Congresses  in  charge  of  the  Ap- 
propriations before  and  after  the  division  of  the 
Ways  and  Means.  The  shifting  or  promotion  of 
chairmen  and  of  members  from  one  committee  to 
another,  when  taken  into  account,  adds  a  few 
shining  names  to  the  above  roll,  and  does  justice 
to  those  deserving  of  equal  praise  with  men  whose 
records  are  highest  for  long  faithfulness  in  one 
particular  kind  of  labor.  These  transfers  are  es- 
pecially important  in  the  post  helium  period,  and 
their  discussion  is  reserved  for  the  topic  of  leader- 
ship. 

The  power  of  removal  from  a  committee  has 
perhaps  never  been  directly  exercised,  either  by 
the  Speaker  or  by  the  House.  Resignations  have 
sometimes  been  practically  forced,  and  from  vari- 
ous causes  are  frequent.1  The  impracticability  of 
removing  committeemen  was  realized  by  Speaker 

1  For  prominent  cases  of  resignation,  cf.  C.  G.,  Feb.  9,  1842; 
Dec.  6-11,  I860-  Feb.  1,  1875. 


142  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Blaine.1  Earlier,  John  Quincy  Adams  tells  of  fu- 
tile endeavors  to  exchange  with  Edward  Everett 
his  chairmanship  of  the  Manufactures  for  second 
place  on  the  Foreign  Affairs.2  Upon  new  appoint- 
ments, formerly  occurring  every  year,  now  bien- 
nially, ample  opportunity  has  been  given  to  dis- 
tribute rewards  and  punishments  for  committee 
conduct.  John  Randolph  —  not  to  call  forth  too 
often  the  shade  of  that  knight  of  the  Old  Dominion 
—  was,  for  his  perverseness  with  President  Jeffer- 
son, at  first  totally  left  out  in  the  naming  of  the 
standing  committees  at  the  second  session  of  the 
Ninth  Congress.  Richard  Fletcher  incurred  a  simi- 
lar penalty  because  he  had  made  charges  against 
the  Ways  and  Means  in  a  speech  at  Fanueil  Hall.3 
Against  the  list  of  seventy  Representatives  (down 
until  1895)  who  had  held  standing  committee 
chairmanships  for  periods  of  six  years  and  upward 
must  be  set  off  some  thirteen  hundred  names  of 
those  who  had  fallen  below  this  line  for  an  idea 
of  the  ratio  of  permanence  in  committee  service. 

Consideration  of  the  control  of  the  House  over 
its  committees  brought  out  the  strong  and  the  weak 
points  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  We  may 
here  notice  the  influences  which  have  advanced 
and  retarded  the  development  of  the  standing 
committee  system  with  the  advantages  and  disad- 

i  C.  G.,  Dec.  9,  1869.      «  j.  q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  VIII.,  437. 
a  C.  G.,  Dec.  13,  1837;  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  IX.,  449. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.    143 

vantages  which  have  attended  it  as  a  legislative 
organization.  Its  growth  has  in  the  main  kept 
pace  with  two  phenomena  over  which  the  govern- 
ment has  exercised  almost  as  slight  control  as  over 
the  bounding  seas  or  the  upbuilding  of  coral  islands 
therein ;  namely,  with  the  growth  and  spread  of 
population,  causing  the  House  to  grow  in  size,  and 
with  the  demands  —  steadily  enlarging  in  peace, 
driving  headlong  in  war — for  legislation  upon  sub- 
jects old  and  new  to  the  province  of  the  Federal 
authority.  Accordingly  as  these  forces  exert  their 
influence  more  or  less  in  the  future  will  further 
developments  change  the  complexion  of  the  body, 
which  presents  differences  so  striking  when  the  ex- 
tremes of  a  century  are  compared.  With  such 
results  attendant  upon  progress  from  a  member- 
ship of  sixty-five  to  one  of  three  hundred  and  fifty- 
seven,  what  might  be  the  outcome  were  the  growth 
to  reach  six  hundred  and  seventy,  the  size  of  the 
British  House  of  Commons  ? 1  With  the  number  of 
bills  introduced  as  an  index,  beginning  with  about 
two  hundred  per  Congress,  reaching  in  1803  to 
more  than  one  thousand,  in  1867-1869  to  two 
thousand  and  five  hundred,  in  1873-1875  to  five 

1  An  interesting  philosophical  article  of  Senator  Barbour,  fa- 
voring a  Constitutional  amendment  to  limit  membership  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  to  two  hundred,  appeared  in  the  Rich- 
mond Inquirer,  Dec.  28,  1821.  It  was  widely  reprinted  by  papers 
of  the  day.  It  rang  the  changes  upon  the  greatest  question  of 
parliamentary  progress,  the  giving  up  of  individual  rights  for  the 
sake  of  stronger  organization. 


144  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

thousand,  and  now  above  the  line  of  twenty  thou- 
sand, what  new  rules  may  not  be  evolved  when  the 
present  ones  are  no  longer  adequate  to  the  grow- 
ing public  pressure  for  governmental  regulation  ? 
Representative  Holman  and  others  have  claimed 
that  the  scattering  of  the  appropriation  bills  among 
eight  different  committees,  whereas  previously  to 
1880  they  were  all  prepared  by  one,  has  involved 
an  increase  in  expenditures  averaging  twenty-nine 
millions  of  dollars  annually.1  Speaking  generally, 
growth  in  the  number  of  the  standing  committees, 
while  forced  in  the  first  place  by  the  broadening 
of  the  sphere  of  the  general  government  through 
causes  external  to  the  House,  has  mightily  reacted 
through  their  own  activity  to  the  further  enlarge- 
ment and  intensifying  of  the  Congressional  powers. 
Each  has  been  as  a  rule  so  constituted  as  to  give 
largest  representation  to  regions  where  the  partic- 
ular interest  committed  to  it  is  most  flourishing. 
Whether  or  not  this  has  signified  promotion  of 
the  general  welfare  is  a  question  leading  beyond 
the  limits  of  this  study.  It  is  only  necessary  to 
take  from  the  lips  of  men  who  have  participated 
in  the  movement  reasonings  wherewith,  accord- 
ing to  their  temperaments,  they  have  sought  to 
delay  or  to  advance  the  developing  system.  Those 
who  would  have  legislative  measures  prepared  by 
the  House,  by  the  Whole,  or  by  very  large  commit- 

i  Cf.  estimates  of  Samuel  J.  Randall,  C.  R.,  Dec.  15,  1885. 


SELECT  AND  STANDING   COMMITTEES.   145 

tees,  have  decried  the  small  select  and  standing 
committees  for  bodies  not  widely  enough  represen- 
tative, and  offering  by  their  secrecy,  their  power  of 
pigeon-holing  certain  bills  and  reporting  others, 
their  especial  adaptation  to  informal  agreement  and 
cabal,  rare  opportunities  for  class  legislation.  Ex- 
isting standing  committees  have  opposed  the  cre- 
ation of  others,  realizing  that  every  new  comer 
subtracts  from  their  jurisdiction  and  lessens  their 
power.  The  Judiciary  saw  its  time-honored  circuit 
threatened  by  a  new  Committee  on  Constitutional 
Amendments.  The  Public  Lands  complained  of 
the  raising  of  a  select  committee  on  Irrigation  and 
Arid  Lands,  and  fought  down  the  proposal  for  a 
Committee  on  Public  Parks  and  Reservations.1 
Constant  trouble  and  loss  of  time  have  been  caused 
until  recently  by  conflicts  of  jurisdiction.  Govern- 
ment should  not  make  laws  by  the  rod,  says  the 
laissez  faire  school,  —  the  standing  committee  sys- 
tem means  larger  national  expenses  and  heightened 
evils  of  paternalism.  "  We  cannot  see  the  forest 
for  the  trees  ;  "  responsibility  for  public  measures  is 
divided.  Union  and  harmony  in  legislation  are 
destroyed  by  cutting  up  complex  subjects,  and  ren- 
dering impossible  the  comprehensive  view  which 
one  body  can  take.  It  is  better  that  the  same  eyes 
survey  the  financial  income  and  outgo  of  govern- 
ment, the  necessities  of  an  industry  or  an  interest 

1  C.  B.,  Jan.  28,  1892. 


146  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

—  be  it  military  or  manufacturing  —  and  the  means 
at  hand  for  meeting  them. 

The  progressive  party,  replying,  declares  that  a 
certain  amount  of  secrecy  is  necessary,  especially 
for  the  detection  of  guilt  by  investigating  commit- 
tees, and  generally  upon  other  grounds  of  public 
welfare.  While  one  small  committee  may  be  in 
itself  narrowly  representative,  a  large  number  of 
them  stands  both  for  a  large  number  of  localities 
and  industries  coming  in  for  a  share  of  power  and 
attention,  and  for  a  large  number  of  public  men 
thoroughly  informed  in  the  affairs  of  the  country. 
There  is  safety  in  a  division  of  power  among  men 
and  among  interests ;  one  committee  exercises  a 
wholesome  veto  upon  another.  The  smaller  the 
committee,  the  more  it  feels  its  dependence  in  the 
presence  of  the  great  House.  With  fewer  members, 
complications  arising  from  numbers  are  minimized. 
A  quorum  is  easier  to  be  obtained.  Small  commit- 
tees are  not  debating,  but  working,  societies.  While 
the  distracting  passions  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  helped  to  rend  the  Union  asunder,  bright 
friendships,  resulting  between  men  of  widely  sepa- 
rated regions  and  vitally  antagonistic  parties  from 
the  touch  of  elbows  around  a  standing  committee 
table,  have  gone  far  to  remove  those  misunderstand- 
ings and  heal  those  discords  which  were  cause  and 
effect  of  the  Civil  War.1  By  availing  itself  so 
1  North  American  Review.  158:  266,  267. 


SELECT  AND   STANDING   COMMITTEES.   147 

extensively  of  the  art  of  printing,  the  House  has 
obviated  largely  whatever  evils  arise  from  want  of 
communication  between  its  committees  for  the  cor- 
relation of  their  measures.  To  do  justice  to  many 
interests  of  the  country  growing  rapidly  to  vast 
proportions  and  becoming  correspondingly  more  in- 
tricately related,  deeper  concentration  must  be  had 
by  setting  subjects  off  by  themselves,  and  putting 
each  in  charge  of  efficient  specialists.  Precision, 
maturity,  and  dispatch  must  be  secured  by  the 
economic  laws  of  the  division  of  labor,  the  same 
ancient  processes  which  have  ever  characterized 
the  advance  of  that  general  human  society  which 
legislative  assemblies  mirror.1 

Hard  and  fast  lines  can  scarcely  be  drawn  be- 
tween the  character  of  the  standing  and  the  char- 
acter of  the  select  committee.  The  former  might 
be  defined  as  one  whose  existence  is  made  contin- 
uous by  standing  rules,  with  opportunity  for  a 
change  in  its  personnel  every  two  years,  with  its  size 
and  duties  varying  not  at  all  or  slowly.  The  con- 
trasts between  the  two  kinds  have  gradually  grown 
less  important.  Very  exciting  disputes  sometimes 
occurred  in  earlier  days  ovei*  the  raising  of  select 
committees  upon  the  conduct  of  European  bellige- 

1  Discussions  relative  to  the  creation  and  enlargement  of  stand- 
ing committees  are  to  be  found  in  C.  A. -C.  R.,  Dec.  4,  1809; 
Nov.  12,  1811 ;  Dec.  8,  1819 ;  Dec.  6, 1821 ;  Dec.  3,  5,  1833 ;  Dec.  17, 
1847;  Dec.  5,  1861;  Mar.  2,  1865;  Mar.  3,  1873;  Jan.  19,  1882; 
Jan.  28,  1892 ;  Aug.  18,  1893. 


148  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

rents.  The  regular  standing  committee,  with  its 
duties  much  more  miscellaneous  and  its  competi- 
tors much  fewer  than  they  are  now,  presented  fine 
opportunities  for  shelving  measures  to  those  with 
whom  anything  savoring  of  resistance  to  the  for- 
eign powers  was  distasteful.  On  the  other  hand, 
such  open  and  persistent  advocates  of  neutral  rights 
and  the  laws  of  nations  as  Josiah  Quincy  ridi- 
culed the  "  patch-work  committees,"  and  demanded 
through  select  committees  prompt,  decisive  steps 
toward  retaliation  upon  commercial  injuries.1  It 
was  early  discerned  that  a  private  claim  against 
government  also  stood  much  better  chances  if  it 
could  escape  to  a  select  committee  from  the  regular 
standing  committee,  which  was  overburdened,  and 
which  had  rules  of  decision  rather  sifting  in  their 
nature.  A  curious  strife  with  this  object  on  the 
part  of  James  Monroe's  friends  frittered  away 
an  entire  sitting  in  January,  1825.  The  retiring 
President  had  requested  an  investigation  of  his 
long  standing  and  various  accounts  with  the  public 
treasury.  As  a  rule,  standing  committees  may  be 
said  to  have  administrative  regularity  and  conser- 
vatism about  them,  and  to  represent  in  their  com- 
position the  Union  rather  than  a  section;  while 
select  committees,  in  these  later  days  of  their  rar- 
ity, represent  aggressive  policies  upon  live  political 
questions,  and  are  usually  constituted  of  Represen- 

i  C.  A.,  Dec.  4, 1805;  Oct.  29, 1807. 


SELECT  AND  STANDING   COMMITTEES.   149 

tatives  from  particular  regions  where  enthusiasm 
for  their  measures  is  high.  The  incident  of  the 
contest  for  the  World's  Fair,  elsewhere  described, 
was  an  accidental  exception  to  these  distinctions, 
since  the  select  committee  stood  in  its  composition 
for  fair  play.  A  House  battle  royal  between  the 
East  and  the  "  great  Northwest "  in  the  first  stages 
of  the  Civil  War  turned  upon  reference  of  the 
subject  of  fortifications  for  the  Great  Lakes  to  the 
Committee  on  Military  Affairs  or  to  a  select  com- 
mittee of  nine.1  Western  members,  as  men  gene- 
rally younger  and  of  briefer  service,  as  in  short 
constituting  the  "  outs "  struggling  against  the 
"  ins,"  have  often  found  their  interest  to  lie  in  the 
creation  of  new  committees.  So  they  urged  on 
the  above  occasion  that  the  Great  Lakes  were  not 
represented  upon  the  busy  Military  Affairs  at  a 
time  when  the  subject  of  their  defense  was  of 
equal  magnitude  with  that  of  sea-coast  protection, 
and  demanded  the  advice  of  those  who  had  per- 
sonal knowledge  of  their  needs.  Doubtless  these 
were  surface  motives  to  the  more  vital  subject  of 
the  management  of  campaigns  and  armies  against 
the  South. 

i  C.  G.,  Dec.  5, 1861. 


There  is  a  primacy  in  the  order  of  things  in  this  House  and  in 
Congress  which  cannot  he  overlooked. 

James  A.  Gakfield. 


I  cannot  speak  for  any  one  else ;  for  myself,  I  do  not  feel  that 
I  was  sent  here  to  act  as  clerk  for  any  memher  or  any  committee, 
and,  if  I  retain  my  reason  and  my  self-respect,  I  surely  shall 
never  do  so. 

John  H.  Reagan. 


We  take  the  opportunity  to  express  our  satisfaction  with  the 
liberality  which  has  distinguished  the  leading  appointments  on 
these  committees.  We  find  in  them  no  trace  either  of  party  or 
geographical  bias,  no  propitiation  of  friends,  or  proscription  of  ad- 
versaries. The  Speaker  seems  to  have  aimed  at  as  equal  a  distri- 
bution as  possible  of  the  honors  and  responsibilities  which  devolve 
upon  the  chairman. 

National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  12, 1825. 


CHAPTER   VI. 

EQUALITY    AND    LEADERSHIP. 

The  spirit  of  equality  which  set  its  mark  so 
deeply  upon  American  colonial  life  and  political  in- 
stitutions found  secure  lodgment  in  the  Constitu- 
tion with  those  clauses  which  base  each  State's 
membership  in  the  House  upon  equal  fractions  of 
the  population  and  —  although  not  expressly  stated 
as  in  the  case  of  Senators  —  give  to  each  Represen- 
tative the  right  to  cast  a  vote  which  shall  have  equal 
weight  with  the  vote  of  any  one  of  his  fellows.1 
But  other  forces,  within  and  without  the  Consti- 
tution, have  clashed  with  the  idea  of  equality.  In 
a  mixed  complement  of  theories  and  conditions 
must  be  sought  an  understanding  of  the  rela- 
tions between  the  several  committees  and  groups  of 
committees.  While  Congressmen  are  made  artifi- 
cially equal,  somewhat  as  the  surveyor's  chain  has 
plotted  wide  inland  domains  off  into  townships, 
forces  beyond  the  human  lawgiver's  guidence  trace 

1  The  present-day  American  and  English  spirit  is  graphically 
contrasted  in  an  article  entitled  "The  American  Notion  of  Equal- 
ity," by  Henry  Childs  Merwin.  The  Atlantic  Monthly,  LXXX., 
354,  Sept.,  1897. 

151 


152  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

upon  the  chart  of  national  legislation  outlines  as 
strikingly  various  in  size,  position,  and  relation  as 
those  of  the  commonwealths  which  give  individu- 
ality to  a  political  map  of  the  United  States.  The 
continually  shifting  resultant  of  these  forces  for 
equality  and  inequality  helps  to  make  the  history  of 
the  committee  system.  Inequality  seeks  and  finds 
temporary  refuge  or  success  in  committee  machin- 
ery, but  all  the  while  that  patiently  working  power 
of  numerical  units  in  the  Yeas  and  Nays  of  the 
House  is  trimming  away  towards  uniformity.  The- 
orists of  the  seventeenth-century  type  might  with 
nice  logic  divide  the  entire  business  of  the  House, 
like  its  entire  voting-power,  unchangeably  into 
some  three  hundred  and  sixty  equal  portions,  to 
be  assigned  to  three  hundred  and  sixty  committees. 
But  "  there  is  a  primacy  in  the  order  of  things,"  as 
Garfield  said ;  and  —  what  his  modesty  forbade  that 
he  should  say,  his  strong  career  illustrates  —  nature 
matches  the  primacy  among  things  with  a  primacy 
among  men.  The  committee  system,  as  standing 
for  a  correlation  of  many  dissimilar  and  unequal 
legislative  objects,  has  been  the  opportunity  upon 
which  industry  and  ability  have  mounted  to  lead- 
ership.1 

Under  different  forms  and  with  growing  inten- 
sity the  protest  against  the  superior  privileges  of 
some  over  others  has,  from  the  start,  exerted  its 

1  Cf.  Bryce's  "American  Commonwealth,"  I,  197. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  153 

constant  moral  regulation,  and  accomplished  in 
the  rules  its  occasional  revolutions.  The  first  in- 
sistence is  for  equality  among  individuals ;  the 
second,  for  equality  among  committees.  In  the 
speech  which  he  sends  home  to  his  district,  a  dis- 
satisfied member,  for  his  mediocrity  or  for  other 
cause,  slighted  by  the  Speaker  in  the  distribution 
of  committee  honors,  tortures  the  American  eagle 
on  this  wise :  "  The  haughty  disdain  with  which 
members  of  this  House  who  seek  a  hearing  before 
some  of  these  committees  are  treated  by  the  arro- 
gant assumption  of  those  who  chance  to  fill  the 
important  position  of  chairman  should  remind  us 
of  the  stern  necessity  imposed  by  self-respect  to 
clip  their  wings,  and  teach  them  that  we  have  not 
yet  abdicated  the  rights  conferred  upon  us  by  an 
enlightened  constituency."  Whereupon  the  witty 
Congressman  tersely  replies,  "Is  it  possible  that 
there  is  anything  in  this  4  tyranny,'  this  4  one-man 
power,'  that  a  man  cannot  see  until  he  looks  at  it 
through  a  black  eye  ?  "  The  witty  Congressman 
also  sees  something  in  "the  enviable  position  of 
'end  man'  to  the  Committee  on  Expenditures  in 
the  Department  of  Justice  with  nothing  to  do," 
and  knows  from  his  own  easy-going  experience 
that  "  if  a  man  wants  to  become  a  splendid  cipher, 
if  he  wants  to  get  a  magnificent  position  of  unim- 
portance, if  he  wants  to  become  a  real  nonentity, 
let  him  come  to  Congress,  and  let  him  get  safely 


154  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ensconced  on  the  tail  end  of  an  average  committee, 
and  his  hopes  will  be  realized."  Yet  there  is  a 
genuine  ring  of  democracy  when  one  of  the  little 
band  which  a  new  party  has  sent  to  the  House 
faces  the  chiefs  of  older  organizations  with  the 
words  :  "  Coming  up  from  our  respective  districts 
in  the  interest  of  our  constituents,  we  are  clothed 
with  equal  authority  and  under  the  Constitution 
and  laws  of  our  country  we  are  entitled  to  equal 
privileges  upon  the  floor."  "  Upon  what  meat 
doth  this  our  Caesar  feed  that  he  is  grown  so  great 
that  I  cannot  even  ask  a  question  about  a  bill,  or 
express  a  doubt  as  to  its  wisdom  ?  "  was  the  Shake- 
spearian shaft  recently  sent  by  the  Chairman  of 
Appropriations  against  the  Chairman  of  Naval  Af- 
fairs.1 Even  Thomas  B.  Reed,  of  the  ancient  im- 
perial title,  declared  not  long  before  the  Speaker's 
mantle  fell  upon  his  shoulders :  "  For  the  last 
three  Congresses,  the  representatives  of  the  people 
of  the  United  States  have  been  in  irons.  They 
have  been  allowed  to  transact  no  public  business 
except  at  the  dictation  and  by  the  permission  of  a 
small  coterie  of  gentlemen  who,  while  they  pos- 
sessed individually  more  wisdom  than  any  of  the 
rest  of  us,  did  not  possess  all  the  wisdom  in  the 
world." 

However  it  may  have  grumbled  at  their  abuse 
of  power,  the  House,  like  all  other  political  and 

l  C.  R.,  Mar.  25,  1896. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  155 

social  bodies,  has  had  to  evolve  leaders.  Firstly 
appears  the  Speaker,  to  whom  it  has  added  dignity 
that  almost  completely  hides  the  original  attribu- 
tion. Secondly,  the  chairmen  of  committees  pre- 
sent a  gradation  of  chieftains  whose  increase  in 
importance,  like  that  of  the  Speaker,  has  come  from 
the  gradual  delegation  of  functions  once  common 
to  all  members.  Thirdly,  the  parliamentary  knowl- 
edge required  to  manage  the  legislative  brakes  at 
a  highly  increased  speed  has  been  bringing  to  the 
front  the  best  leadership  of  minorities.1  A  gallery 
study  of  the  smaller  band  that  sits  watching  the 
rulers  of  the  majority  side  discovers  in  its  center 
one  to  whose  frowns  or  smiles  the  others  are  very 
attentive.2  Successive  steps  by  which  the  Speaker 
lias  added  power  to  power  have  been  thoroughly 
traced.3  The  committee  chairman,  partly  lifted 
by  the  Speaker  in  his  rise,  partly  made  important 
by  the  same  conditions  which  have  elevated  the 
Speaker,  has  taken  on  function  after  function. 
His  position  was  honorary  to  begin  with,  almost  a 
mere  matter  of  being  named  first.  Distinction  lay 
more  in  being  called  to  a  great  many  committees. 
During  Washington's  Administration,  Fisher  Ames 
served   upon   about   fifty,    James    Madison   upon 

1  Bryce's  "American  Commonwealth,"  I.,  149,  150. 

2  This  was  a  distinct  impression  of  the  writer  upon  a  first  view 
of  the  House  in  1893. 

3  Hart's  "Essays  on  American  Government,"  10-17.      Miss 
Follett's  "  The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives." 


156  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

eighty.  There  was  an  indifference  as  to  which 
member  of  a  committee  should  report  its  measures 
to  the  House.  That  membership  upon  an  impor- 
tant committee  was  not  then  so  much  prized  as 
now  is  attested  by  a  pleasant  incident  in  Decem- 
ber, 1795.  Mr.  Tracy,  who  had  served  in  the 
same  capacity  at  the  preceding  session,  was  reap- 
pointed chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Claims. 
"  He  rose  and  observed  that  he  had  been  extremely 
hard  employed  last  year,  and  had  undergone  much 
trouble  about  the  business  of  claims.  He  would, 
therefore,  if  agreeable  to  the  House,  be  very  glad 
to  be  left  out  of  the  nomination."  The  members 
having  complimented  his  high  and  indispensable 
services,  and  having  reminded  him  of  his  duty  to 
his  country,  voted  him  not  excused.  Then  Mr. 
Christie,  another  reappointed  member,  begged  the 
indulgence  of  the  House  with  better  success,  ur- 
ging that  the  state  of  his  health  required  a  horse- 
back ride  every  morning.  The  prominence  of  an 
earlier  chairman  was  largely  due  to  the  fact  that 
he  had  to  master  the  details  of  bills,  and  be  ready 
to  answer  questions  in  debate.  Senator  Hoar  — 
not,  perhaps,  from  any  impression  of  its  religious 
tone  —  has  called  the  House  of  Representatives  a 
sort  of  presbytery.  Seniority  in  age  and  service 
has  always  been  enhanced  in  its  influence  by 
the  fact  that  the  membership  has  been  so  largely 
new  and  unskilled.     The  Speaker,  being  himself 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  157 

an  old  member,  puts  confidence  in  those  whom  he 
has  come  to  know  in  previous  Congresses.  The 
influence  of  these  elders,  through  their  command 
of  the  suffrages  of  new  members  for  his  election, 
gives  them  a  very  real  claim  upon  his  course. 
Having  first  determined  upon  his  chairmen,  he  is 
more  or  less  ready  to  consult  them  as  to  the  re- 
maining committee  appointments.1  Also  he  is 
ready  to  follow  up  his  mark  of  confidence  or  per- 
sonal friendship  by  preferring  them  in  his  recogni- 
tions on  the  floor,  a  selection  which  has  become  an 
imperative  necessity  with  the  growth  of  the  House. 
In  the  time  of  Horace  Greeley's  brief,  brilliant 
representative  career,  the  great  editor  was  so  much 
impressed  with  the  importance  of  these  senior 
chieftains  as  to  advocate  for  them  a  scale  of  in- 
creasing salaries  mounting  fifty  and  one  hundred 
per  cent.2 

While,  from  a  present  view,  the  chairman  has 
enlarging  powers  within  his  increasingly  crowded 
committee,  upon  whose  room,  with  its  conveniences, 
he  has  the  lion's  share  of  claim  and  control,  whose 
clerk  he  appoints,  and  uses  as  a  private  secretary 
when  committee  business  is  dull,  and  to  whose 
sub-committees  he  distributes  the  favors  of  legisla- 
tion; yet  the  place  to  behold  him  in  his  largest 
influence  is  in  the  arena  of  striving  interests,  with 

1  J.  Q.  Adams's  "  Memoirs,"  IX.,  48;  X.,  58. 
*  New  York  Tribune,  Jan.  18,  1849. 


158  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

its  competition  growing  sharper  and  sharper  —  in 
the  daily  assembly  of  all  the  Representatives. 
There  the  Speaker  sits  as  umpire,  while  his  party 
leaders  contend  each  for  the  cause  of  his  own  com- 
mittee. As  likely  as  not  these  men  have  been 
each  other's  rivals,  and  together  faced  the  leaders 
of  the  minority  upon  bloodier  battle-fields.  "  First 
in  war,  first  in  peace,"  is  not  characteristic  alone 
of  Presidents.  Chairmanships  of  committees  call 
for  the  highest  generalship.  Men  may  enter  Con- 
gress with  names  however  great  for  integrity  or 
learning  —  these  are  not  the  chief  passports  to 
prominence  there.  Concerning  the  failure  of  such 
a  one  upon  whom  the  Speaker  had  conferred  a 
chairmanship,  a  writer  in  the  Nation  has  said,  u  It 
is  folly  to  trust  the  floor  management  of  any  im- 
portant measure  to  any  other  than  an  old  hand." 
The  chairman's  steering  qualities  do  not  cease  to 
be  necessary  when  he  has  vanquished  the  chiefs  of 
other  committees  by  securing  attention  to  his  bills 
in  preference  to  theirs.  It  has  come  about  that 
the  kind  and  length  of  consideration  given  to  com- 
mittee measures  before  the  final  vote  are  placed 
almost  solely  on  his  responsibility,  and  vary  with 
his  judgment  of  the  sentiments  of  the  majority. 
To  him,  by  way  of  defining  his  previously  existing 
right  to  open  and  close  a  debate,  has  been  given, 
since  1880,  one  or  two  golden  hours  of  time  which 
he  may  dole  out  in  quarter  hours  or  ten-minute 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  159 

pieces  to  whomsoever  he  pleases.  If  he  thinks  it 
safe  or  wise,  he  insists  upon  the  previous  question 
without  permitting  talk  or  amendment. 

The  rare  qualities  demanded  in  these  respects 
make  Speakers  increasingly  cautious  in  placing 
their  subordinates,  and  in  shifting  them  from  one 
part  of  the  field  to  another  as  occasion  may  re- 
quire. The  line  of  promotion  has  led  from  head- 
ship of  some  one  of  the  others  to  headship  of  the 
finance  committee.  Robert  C.  Schenck,  after  one 
term  as  chairman  with  the  Roads  and  Canals,  1847- 
1849,  and  two  with  the  Military  Affairs,  1863, 
1869,  was  first  upon  the  Ways  and  Means  during 
three  Congresses.  Garfield  advanced  from  the 
Military  Affairs,  1867-1869,  to  the  Banking  and 
Currency,  1869-1871,  then  to  the  Appropriations, 
1871-1875.  Since  1875  the  Democratic  party  has 
controlled  the  House  sixteen  out  of  twenty-two 
years.  Four  careers  of  its  leaders  are  noteworthy. 
William  S.  Holman  held  three  different  chairman- 
ships of  two  terms  each.  William  R.  Morrison  was 
chief  of  the  Public  Lands,  1877-1879,  of  Expendi- 
tures in  the  Treasury  Department,  1879-1881,  and 
of  the  Ways  and  Means,  1877-1879,  1885-1889. 
Samuel  S.  Cox,  quick  and  versatile,  besides  his 
leadership  of  important  select  committees,  was  head 
of  at  least  five  standing  committees,  —  the  War 
Claims,  1857-1859;  the  Banking  and  Currency, 
1875-1877;  the  Library,  1877-1879 ;  the  Foreign 


160  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Affairs,  1879-1881 ;  and  the  Naval  Affairs,  1883- 
1885.  The  most  striking  record  of  all  is  that  of 
William  M.  Springer,  successively  head  of  seven 
different  committees.  He  earned  a  first  reputation 
by  putting  life  into  two  of  the  committees  on  Ex- 
penditures, upon  which  he  worked  for  four  years ; 
he  came  at  last  to  those  for  monetary  measures, 
to  preside  over  which,  upon  testimony  of  one  who 
served  in  both  capacities,  involves  as  much  if  not 
more  real  power  than  the  Speakership.1 

Qualities  demanded  of  a  typical  chairman  are 
best  studied  in  the  careers  of  Representatives  who 
have  risen  to  the  headship  of  the  Appropriations, 
a  place  next  to  the  Speakership  the  most  prized  in 
the  House.  Pre-eminent,  during  the  thirty  years 
of  the  committee's  history,  are  the  records  of  Thad- 
deus  Stevens  and  Samuel  J.  Randall.  Though 
adherents  of  opposite  political  parties,  the  similari- 
ties of  the  two  men  are  marked.  Both  had  had 
preliminary  training  in  the  peculiar  politics  of 
Pennsylvania ;  and  no  legislature,  it  will  be  re- 
called, seems  to  have  molded  the  methods  of  the 
national  House  more  powerfully  than  the  one  that 
long  held  its  turbulent  sessions  in  the  City  of  Broth- 
erly Love.  Their  exteriors  were  as  rugged  as  the 
Keystone  mountains,  their  wills  as  strong  as  the 
iron  digged  thence  to  bind  the  Union  by  far-reach- 
ing highways.     They  were   fighters,   courageous, 

l  C.  R.,  Jan.  19,  1882. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  161 

decided,  aggressive,  uncompromising,  cool  in  the 
midst  of  the  highest  excitement.  They  toiled  un- 
flaggingly.  They  despised  sham  and  cant.  Their 
honesty,  unselfishness,  and  broad  patriotism  com- 
manded the  confidence  of  bitterest  foes.  Both 
came  to  preside  over  the  Appropriations,  after 
many  years  of  preliminary  membership  in  the 
House.  Stevens,  its  first  chairman,  had  already 
touched  his  zenith  as  head  of  the  Wa}Ts  and  Means 
while  it  was  collecting  and  distributing  the  vast 
funds  which  were  sinews  to  the  Civil  War.  He 
had  forged  forward  as  a  leader  of  attack  at  a  time 
when,  most  men  were  hesitating.  In  his  fiery 
three-score-and-ten  he  could  still  enthuse  and  in- 
cite Representatives  young  enough  to  be  his  grand- 
sons. Randall  figured  as  an  able  minority  chief. 
He  was  a  past  master  of  parliamentary  tactics  at 
the  very  period  when  they  availed  most  in  the 
House.  For  seventy  successive  hours  he  never 
left  his  desk,  fighting  down  the  Force  Bill,  defeat- 
ing the  desire  of  the  majority.  Said  General 
Grant,  "Could  Randall  have  led  military  forces 
as  he  did  political  ones,  his  legions  would  have 
been  in  vincible."  He  was  a  judge  of  men,  ap- 
proachable, and  inspiring  warm  personal  attach- 
ment. Upon  the  floor,  his  words  were  few  and  to 
the  point;  he  spoke  only  when  it  was  necessary, 
and  surpassed  in  repartee.  Just  at  the  crisis  when 
they  were  greatly  needed,  he   brought  into   the 


162  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

room  of  the  Appropriations  those  mercantile  ideas 
of  order,  economy,  and  thrift  which  distinguish 
the  city  of  his  birth  and  life-long  home.  He  mas- 
tered the  vast  details  of  all  the  Executive  Depart- 
ments, and  laid  his  powerful  restraining  hand 
upon  the  Senate.  He  was  an  impartial  arbitrator 
among  the  great  and  varied  interests  which  clamor 
before  the  vaults  of  the  national  treasury. 

One  ideal  afternoon  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives yet  vividly  lingers  in  the  memory  of  the 
writer.  For  some  time  after  the  opening  prayer 
business  had  straggled  on.  Upon  the  wide  amphi- 
theater of  the  floor  a  few  earnest,  attentive,  con- 
tending men  filled  the  short  rows  of  seats  in  front 
of  the  Speaker's  high  chair;  for  members,  when 
they  desire  to  be  heard,  leave  their  places  quite 
freely,  and  descend  to  this  little  central  area. 
Thence,  ranging  the  eye  toward  the  long  outer 
circle  and  the  lobbies,  the  scene  became  more 
varied  and  confused.  At  length  the  important 
work  planned  by  the  majority  leaders  for  the  day 
was  reached.  The  chairman  of  a  great  committee 
called  from  the  calendar  a  bill  to  abolish  the  death 
penalty  in  all  cases  of  crime  save  a  few,  and  in 
those  few  to  provide  the  alternative  of  punishing 
by  imprisonment  at  hard  labor  for  life.  It  was 
such  a  change  as  would  mark  the  law's  tardy 
progress  after  civilized  opinion,  the  fulfilling  of 
the  poet's  prayer,  — 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  163 

Then  within  a  prison  yard, 
Faces  fixed  and  stern  and  hard, 
Laughter  and  indecent  mirth. 
Ah !  it  is  the  gallows  tree ! 
Breath  of  Christian  charity, 
Blow  and  sweep  it  from  the  earth. 

The  men  who  proposed  it  were  no  delicate  emo- 
tionalists, but  aging  soldiers,  maimed  and  scarred. 
As  soon  as  the  measure  had  been  read,  two  mem- 
bers tackled  the  chairman.  One  threatened  to 
object  to  its  consideration,  but  yielded,  doubtless 
because  he  knew  that  dilatory  tactics  were  of  no 
avail.  The  other  persuaded  him  to  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  so  that  amendments  might 
be  offered.  With  that,  charge  of  the  floor  fell  by 
courtesy  to  the  author,  or  as  the  chairman  called 
him,  the  father  of  the  bill.  During  these  prelimi- 
naries the  legislators,  with  the  exception  of  half-a- 
dozen,  had  been  absolutely  inattentive.  The  words 
spoken  had  been  accurately  caught  only  by  the 
skilled  stenographer,  as  he  moved  close  to  each 
successive  speaker.  But  now  the  men  scattered 
about  the  hall  or  lounging  beyond  the  outer  rail 
seemed  to  know  intuitively  that  business  had 
reached  full  headway.  A  semblance  of  order  and 
of  interest  began.  The  voice  of  the  recognized 
manager,  explaining  as  he  thought  necessary, 
emerged  from  the  din.  The  leading  minority 
member  of  the   committee,  —  like  the  man  who 


164  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

was  opening  the  discussion,  a  general  in  the  civil 
struggle  of  thirty  years  since,  but  in  the  Southern 
army,  —  came  slowly  from  his  seat  far  up  on  the 
opposite  side.  Near  by,  in  the  space  before  the 
Speaker's  table,  he  stood  listening  and  waiting; 
then,  as  the  other  concluded,  stepped  across  the 
aisle  to  the  majority,  and,  with  some  slight  criti- 
cisms, declared  that  he  favored  the  bill.  The 
manager  spoke  again,  with  high  compliments  for 
his  war-time  foe,  and  with  quick,  astute  replies 
to  various  questions  and  objections  on  the  part  of 
this  and  that  member.  He  found  at  length  his 
chief  opponent  in  a  fellow  Union  general  of  his 
own  political  party.  To  a  prominent  member  of 
the  committee  he  now  assigned  the  task  of  meet- 
ing this  antagonist,  and  took  to  himself  the  part 
of  a  canvasser.  His  tall,  powerful  form  moved 
swiftly  here  and  there  for  low- voiced  consultations. 
He  prepared  a  list  of  other  speakers  to  follow 
his  friend  who  was  holding  the  floor.  Once  he 
politely  approached  a  leader  of  the  minority,  and 
once,  rushing  up  to  a  rather  obstinate  opponent  in 
the  majority,  seemed  to  silence  him  by  some  effec- 
tual threat.  He  made  the  closing  speech  of  the 
general  debate,  and  bestirred  himself,  as  amend- 
ments were  offered,  to  prod  sluggish  followers  from 
their  seats  to  vote  upon  close  divisions.  So  it  was 
that  with  untiring  activity,  upon  the  counting  of  a 
quorum,  and  upon  the  final  votes  in  the  House,  he 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  165 

played  the  part  of  his  own  whip,  as  Englishmen 
might  say.  Hard,  serious  work  was  his,  calling  for 
more  than  a  lawyer's  sharpness  and  endurance  in 
meeting  from  every  quarter  all  kinds  of  obstacles 
and  opponents  ;  but  success,  proving  the  man  right- 
ful owner  of  the  tools,  left  him  the  center  of  a 
pleasant  group  of  congratulators. 

The  power  of  the  great  committee  chairmen 
tempers  the  Speaker's  power.  It  is  time  that  the 
Speaker's  limitations  were  thoroughly  outlined,  as 
a  corrective  to  broad  assertions  concerning  his  ar- 
bitrary authority.  Before  his  election  powerful 
caucus  combinations  exact  from  him  pledges  as  to 
office  and  policy.  That  man  who  can  command 
the  largest  block  of  votes  thus  secures  in  advance 
the  chairmanship  of  Appropriations.  The  leader 
of  the  second  powerful  coterie  obtains  very  likely 
a  minor  seat  on  Appropriations,  or  the  headship 
of  Judiciary  and  second  place  on  the  Rules.  The 
latter  makes  him  the  Speaker's  personal  represen- 
tative on  the  floor.  The  chairmanship  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  is  an  interesting  position.  It 
originated  as  a  usurpation  of  the  Speaker's  au- 
thority in  the  British  Commons.  The  Premier  of 
the  American  House  has  used  it  to  relieve  the 
tedium  of  constant  presiding,  and  to  secure  time 
for  those  other  important  functions  which  are 
properly  performed  in  the  retirement  of  his  cham- 
ber.    He  is  not  in  the  chair  for  much  the  larger 


166  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

part  of  the  House  sittings.  The  two  or  three 
able  men  who  monopolize  the  chairmanship  of 
the  Whole  during  a  Congress  are  regarded  as  the 
Speaker's  promising  heirs.  The  place  is  often  very 
trying.  A  chairman  of  the  Whole  cannot  summon 
or  use  the  sergeant-at-arms.  Members  take  advan- 
tage of  this  and  of  his  other  limitations  to  raise 
disturbance.  Beyond  moral  suasion,  his  only  re- 
course is  to  send  for  the  Speaker.  A  rotund  Scotch- 
Irish  minority  leader,  coming  down  in  front  of  the 
desk,  proceeds  to  defy  the  lightnings  of  Jove.  The 
chairman,  unable  to  silence  him,  summons  his  chief. 
As  the  uMan  from  Maine  "  enters  the  desk,  and  the 
mace  goes  to  its  pedestal,  the  disturber  cries,  "  Mr. 
Speaker,  I  am  going  to  my  seat ;  "  and  he  goes  on 
the  run,  two  steps  up  grade  at  a  time,  the  House 
bursting  into  a  roar  of  merriment.      Again,  Mr. 

J ,   an   Indianian,  comes   in  tardy,  in  a  bad 

humor  about  something,  and  finds  vigorous  fault 
with  his  fellows  for  irrelevant  debate.  He  cannot 
be  silenced,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  gets  into  a 
hubbub,  and  the  final  resort  is  had.  "  Suddenly," 
says  an  eye-witness,  u  the  doors  burst  open,  and  the 
large  form  of  the  Speaker  came  into  view.  The 
effect  of  his  appearance  was  electrical.  After  an 
instant's  cheering  the  whole  House  was  absolutely 

quiet.     Mr.  J had  taken  his  seat  almost  the 

very  second  that  the  Speaker's  face  appeared  within 
the  doors.     It  was  like  a  big  country  school.     In 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  167 

the  teacher's  absence  the  pupils  had  thrown  all  dis- 
cipline to  the  winds,  and  the  big  boy  who  had  been 
left  as  monitor  had  been  openly  defied.  With  the 
teacher's  return  all  was  quiet.  Then  the  big  boy 
made  his  complaint  about  having  been  unable 
to  maintain  order;  and  the  teacher,  in  his  kind, 
fatherly  way,  which  made  him  loved  as  well  as 
feared,  read  a  lecture  which  made  them  all  feel 
ashamed  of  what  they  had  done.  So  it  was  in 
the  House." 

Character  study  of  leaders  must  be  joined  with 
character  study  of  committees.  The  issue  of  equal- 
ity versus  primacy  is  also  vital  with  these  larger 
legislative  units.  The  idea  that  each  one  of  them 
ought  to  stand  upon  the  same  footing  with  all 
the  others  has  lived  throughout  the  entire  proce- 
dure of  the  House.  No  other  idea  prevailed  at 
first ;  any  committee  whose  representative  could 
"catch  the  Speaker's  eye"  might  present  its  re- 
ports, and  get  them  considered  immediately.  In 
1811  the  Morning  Hour  for  call  of  committees  in 
regular  order  was  instituted.1  In  1837  business 
had  reached  a  stage  of  pressure  which  prevented 
all  the  committees  from  being  heard  at  the  same 
daily  hour,  and  an  amendment  of  the  rule  ex- 
tended the  call  from  day  to  day  until  each  had 
submitted  its  measures.     This  presented  an  open- 

1  This  device  may  be  found  in  motions  made  by  William  Find- 
lay,  Jan.  7,  1805,  and  James  Sloan,  April  21,  1806. 


168  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ing  for  the  crowding  out  of  the  less  popular  by 
the  more  popular  committees.  The  rule  requiring 
bills  appropriating  public  property  to  be  considered 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  was  yet  far  in  the 
future.  Therefore  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands 
was  able  to  monopolize  the  Morning  Hour  by  hold- 
ing it  from  day  to  day  during  the  greater  part  of 
six  years !  l  Other  committees  at  last  regained 
their  rights  against  it  by  a  provision  that  no  com- 
mittee should  in  its  turn  occupy  the  Morning  Hour 
for  more  than  two  successive  days.  Here  came 
the  opportunity  of  the  minority,  which  got  to  be 
so  expert  in  preventing  important  bills  from  being 
reached  by  simply  filibustering  away  the  two  hours 
upon  minor  measures,  that  the  sixty-minute  period 
came  to  be  called  the  "nine  holes,"  an  allusion  to 
the  familiar  noughts  and  crosses  of  school-boys.2 
Such  has  been  the  delicacy  required  for  any  read- 
justment of  the  rules !  The  revision  of  1880  did 
away  with  this  game  by  dropping  the  rule,  so  that 
there  was  not  even  the  shadow  of  the  former  equal- 
ity of  committees.3  A  rescue  was  effected  by  Thad- 
deus  C.  Pound,  ex-speaker  of  the  Wisconsin  As- 
sembly. His  rule  of  1882,  purged  in  1886  of  its 
serious  defect,  the  bestowal  upon  any  four  mem- 

i  C.  G.,  Mar.  22, 1852;  Jan.  19,  1854;  Dec.  7,  1857,  et  seq. 

2  C.  R.,  April  9,  1879;  June  25,  1879.  Article  by  George  E 
Hoar,  North  American  Review,  128:  121. 

8  C.  R.,  Jan.  6,  1880,  report  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  under 
heading,  "  Orders  of  the  Day." 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  169 

bers  of  the  power  to  prevent  consideration  of  a  bill, 
was  part  of  the  code  as  late  as  1895.  It  provided 
a  daily  hour  wherein  committees  were  called  in 
turn,  each  with  the  privilege  of  occupying  the  time 
for  one  day  with  any  one  measure  chosen  from  any 
of  the  three  calendars ;  but  the  Special  Order  had 
long  rendered  it  obsolete. 

The  general  result  of  this  vanishing  equality 
may  be  seen  by  any  visitor  who  passes  up  and 
down  the  hallways  or  penetrates  into  the  lower 
corridors  of  the  House  wing  in  the  national  Capi- 
tol. Each  committee  has  its  apartments,  with  its 
name  printed  upon  their  entrance.  By  far  the 
greater  number  of  them  will  be  found  closed ;  oc- 
casionally the  twinkling  of  a  light  within  will  be 
seen,  or,  if  the  door  be  standing  ajar,  a  solitary 
individual  sitting  at  a  desk,  and  the  quietness  of 
the  place  will  suggest  the  pleasures  of  retirement 
from  a  feverish  legislative  world.  But  by  con- 
trast one  may  suddenly  come  upon  a  screened 
committee  doorway  guarded  by  an  athletic  em- 
ployee, where  Representatives  hurry  in  and  out 
like  bees  to  and  from  a  hive.  According  to  the 
Congressional  wit,  it  is  the  bonanza  or  corner  com- 
mittee on  the  one  hand ;  on  the  other  the  orna- 
mental committee.  Joshua  R.  Giddings  relates 
how  the  Slave  Power  deposed  him  from  his  chair- 
manship of  the  Claims  in  1843,  and  gave  him  sev- 
enth place  on  the  Revolutionary  Pensions,  "  which 


170  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

having  no  business  did  not  meet."  1  In  1882  Mr. 
Robeson  remarked  that  thirteen  committees  had 
charge  of  ninety  per  cent  of  the  business  of  the 
House.2  Later,  Mr.  Singleton  stated  that  several 
committees  met  but  once  or  twice  during  a  ses- 
sion, and  adjourned  without  maturing  any  bills  or 
reports ;  and  Mr.  Springer  declared  that  the  Com- 
mittee on  Militia  had  reported  but  once  in  ten 
years.3  A  minority  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Accounts  showed  in  1892  that  one  of  the  commit- 
tees on  expenditures  in  the  departments  had  never 
made  a  report,  though  three  years  old,  that  two 
others  had  made  none  within  six  years,  and  that 
in  the  same  time  four  others  had  made  on  an  aver- 
age one  per  year.4  Mr.  Springer  proposed  to  abol- 
ish twenty-one  committees,  and  create  four  in  their 
stead,  with  the  object  of  reforming  abuses  in  the 
matter  of  idle,  high-salaried  clerks,  and  of  the  use 
of  rooms  in  the  Capitol  for  private  convenience. 
The  almost  absolute  prevalence  of  the  spoils  sys- 
tem in  the  choice  of  officers  and  employees  for 
Congress  is  a  great  evil,  which  has  found  rare 
opportunity  and  secure  shelter  in  the  committee 
rooms.     A  certain  chairman,  it  is  said,  called  a 

i  Giddings's  "  History  of  the  Rebellion  ;  Its  Authors  and 
Causes." 

2  C.  R.,  Jan.  17,  1882. 

s  C.  R.,  Dec.  15,  17,  1885;  cf.  also  remarks  of  Mr.  Horr,  C.  R., 
Dec.  20,  1883. 

4  52  :  1,  House  Report,  No.  3. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  171 

meeting  of  his  committee  but  once  during  a  recent 
session,  and  then  for  the  sole  purpose  of  enabling 
a  clerk  to  claim  twenty-two  hundred  dollars  in 
salary  in  lieu  of  fifteen  hundred  dollars  which 
he  would  otherwise  have  received.  Of  the  two 
branches  the  Senate  has  gone  much  farther  in 
this  extravagance.  Thirty-five  of  the  fifty-five 
House  standing  committees,  and  twenty-one  of 
the  forty-six  Senate  standing  committees  were 
scheduled  for  regular  weekly  meetings  in  the  sec- 
ond session  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress.  Forty- 
one  House  committees  had  in  all  fifty  clerks,  and 
sixty  Senate  committees  in  all  sixty-five  clerks.1 
The  Legislative  branch  has  fairly  cured  Executive 
and  Judiciary  ills  by  civil  service  reform ;  but  the 
physician  has  yet  finally  to  heal  himself  with  his 
own  remedy. 

The  dwindling  power  of  some  committees  hav- 
ing been  traced,  it  is  well  to  follow  the  course  by 
which  others  have  mounted  to  supremacy.  As 
heretofore  intimated,  the  chief  underlying  forces 
in  such  direction  have  been,  first,  the  importance 
which  the  national  Representatives,  under  con- 
stantly increasing  pressure  for  both,  have  attached 
to  public  over  private  legislation ;  and  second  — 
under  a  further  compulsion  of  augmenting  burdens 

'  1  For  discussion  of  an  increase  of  clerk  salaries  by  a  Senate 
rider  upon  an  appropriation  bill.  cf.  C.  R.,  proceedings  of  the  Sen- 
ate, Mar.  26,  1896,  and  of  the  House,  April  14,  1896. 


172  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

—  their  preference,  above  other  calls  for  public 
laws,  of  those  budget  duties  which  the  Constitu- 
tion mainly  vests  in  them.  They  have  consecu- 
tively embodied  in  the  growing  code  of  rules : 
(1)  Special  privileges  bestowed  upon  committees 
charged  with  public  business,  and  rigid  limitations 
upon  private  bill  committees ;  (2)  Privileges  for 
purely  financial  bills  and  their  committees  over  all 
others,  public  or  private  ;  (3)  Provisions  for  a 
speedy,  energetic,  and  intelligent  selection  of  par- 
ticular bills  from  the  general  docket  of  all  meas- 
ures awaiting  action  by  the  House.  What  is  said 
in  other  chapters  concerning  the  committee  system 
and  private  interests,  the  process  which  has  ter- 
minated in  the  restriction  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union  to  the  subjects 
of  public  funds  and  property,  the  parliamentary 
rights  of  joint  and  conference  committees,  throws 
much  light  upon  the  method  of  this  development. 
The  earliest  orders  of  business  permitted  an  equal- 
ity between  bills  in  the  same  stage  of  advance- 
ment, and  also  put  the  committees  on  the  same 
footing  in  the  matter  of  making  reports.  Expe- 
rience, proceeding  from  customs  to  rulings  of 
Speakers,  and  finally  to  standing  rules,  has  gradu- 
ally subverted  both  of  these  conditions,  the  former 
by  the  practice  of  making  special  orders,  the  latter 
by  granting  to  certain  committees  the  right  to 
report  at  any  time. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  173 

A  certain  word  in  the  joint  rules  of  July  27, 
1789,  seems  innocent  enough,  but,  in  the  light  of  la- 
ter history,  contains  the  prophecy  of  revolutions  in 
the  committee  system ;  the  clause  that  established 
the  Committee  on  Enrolled  Bills  directed  that  its 
members,  upon  finishing  their  examination  of  a 
parchment,  "should  make  their  report  forthwith 
to  the  respective  Houses."  The  proceedings  for 
thirty  years  following  show  no  refusal  to  receive 
this  committee's  reports  whenever  it  chose  to 
make  them.  About  1822  a  new  rule  distinctly 
stated  that  it  could  report  at  any  time.1  In  1831 
it  attempted  to  take  advantage  of  this  broad  privi- 
lege to  introduce  a  resolution  to  suspend  one  of 
the  joint  rules,  but  was  promptly  declared  out  of 
order  by  the  Speaker  on  the  ground  that  its  right 
of  reporting  at  any  time  applied  only  to  the  pres- 
entation of  examined  bills.2  The  Speaker  would 
probably  not  have  been  so  strict  had  he  been  a 
member  of  the  committee  —  but  this  later.  March 
16,  1844,  at  the  beginning  of  the  Mexican  War, 
the  newly  established  Committee  on  Engraving 
acquired  the  right  to  report  at  all  times.  The 
Committee  on  Printing  gained  the  same  privi- 
lege, Feb.  17,  1848,  upon  ground  that  it  could 
thus  avoid  unnecessary  repetition  of  type-setting.3 

1  Rule  8P>,  Appendix  to  17:  1,  H.  J.,  and  Rule  134,  Appendix 
to  28:  1,  H.  J.  The  latter  bears  date  Mar.  13, 1822,  which  is  per- 
haps incorrect.  2  h.  J.  and  C.  D.,  Mar.  2,  1831. 

»  C.  G.,  Feb.  17,  1848,  remarks  of  Mr.  Henley. 


174  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

These  three  were  routine  committees.  Others,  by 
sufferance  of  the  House,  occasionally  exercised  the 
privilege  prior  to  1850.  Near  the  close  of  the 
first  session  in  that  year  appeared  a  new  and  im- 
portant departure  in  the  practice.  Thomas  H. 
Bayly,  chairman  of  the  Ways  and  Means,  moved 
that  his  committee  and  conference  committees 
should  have  the  privilege  by  a  standing  rule. 
"  Bills  from  the  Senate  —  appropriation  bills," 
said  he,  "  will  be  coming  like  a  torren  tupon  us ; 
and  if  the  committee  on  Ways  and  Means  is  to  be 
compelled  to  wait  for  the  regular  call  of  reports, 
it  will  be  impossible  to  get  the  bills  through  dur- 
ing the  single  week  that  remains  of  the  session." 
There  were  enthusiastic  cries  of  "  Consent !  "  But 
stubborn  opposition  developed,  which,  though  un- 
able to  defeat  his  proposition,  succeeded  in  limit- 
ing it  to  the  appropriation  bills  and  to  the  nine 
remaining  days  before  adjournment.1  With  such 
exceptions,  the  committees  presented  reports  as 
their  names  were  called  in  turn  by  the  clerk,  until 
the  Civil  War,  with  its  vast  financial  burdens, 
brought  to  the  Ways  and  Means  permanent  pos- 
session of  the  privilege.  For  a  time  previous  to 
1860,  John  Quincy  Adams's  regulation  of  1837, 
which  required  the  Ways  and  Means  to  report  the 
general  appropriation  bills  within  thirty  days  from 
the  beginning  of  a  session,  had  been  construed  as 

i  C.  G.,  Sept.  21,  1850. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  175 

conferring  the  right  to  report  at  any  time.  John 
Sherman  brought  this  right  into  the  rules  with 
the  restriction  ufor  reference  merely,"  March  19, 
1860.  He  failed  at  the  same  time  to  secure  the 
privilege  for  revenue  bills.  His  chief  opponent 
said :  "  There  is  no  good  reason  for  allowing  the 
committee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  give  precedence 
to  a  tariff  bill  which  would  not  equally  apply  in 
favor  of  allowing  the  committee  on  Commerce  to 
report  a  river  and  harbor  bill,  or  of  allowing  the 
committee  on  Public  Lands  to  report  a  homestead 
bill."  It  was  a  sentence  foreshadowing  a  great 
future  struggle  between  the  finance  committees 
and  the  committees  for  general  legislation,  an 
epoch  the  most  interesting  in  the  history  of  com- 
mittee relations. 

Two  other  phenomena  in  the  unfolding  pro- 
cedure lead  up  to  this  important  epoch.  Both 
relate  to  the  appropriation  biltol ;  the  one  to  their 
gradual  differentiation,  the  other  to  the  conduct 
of  the  House  and  its  committees  in  the  matter  of 
riders. 

For  the  first  forty  years  of  the  nation's  history 
appropriations  were  in  the  main  confined  to  one 
regular  annual  law.1  Mr.  T.  P.  Cleaves,  Clerk  of 
the  Senate  Committee  on  Appropriations,  has  com- 
piled a  pamphlet  history  of  the  appropriation  bills. 

1  "  Appropriations  and  Misappropriations,"  an  article  by 
James  A.  Garfield,  North  American  Review.  128:579. 


176 


CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 


He  places  the  first  step  toward  division  in  1794. 
Following  are  the  data :  — 


APPROPRIATION  BILLS. 


Date  of  Origin     Date  of  Origin  of 


of  Act. 


Present  Title 


1794 
1799 
1823 
1826 
1826 
1834 
1837 
1844 
1856 
1856 

1880 
1880 


1832 
1799 
1823 
1854 
1871 
1836 
1837 
1845 
1857 
1857 

1881 
1881 


Present  Title  of  Act. 

Army. 

Navy. 

Fortifications. 

Pensions. 

Rivers  and  Harbors. 

Military  Academy. 

Indian. 

Post^Office. 

Sundry  Civil. 

Legislative,  Executive, 

and  Judicial. 
Agriculture. 
District  of  Columbia. 


This  table  shows  that  the  same  gradual  process 
which  had  distributed  the  business  of  the  House 
among  more  than^fbrty  committees  by  the  year 
1880,  had  also  classified  the  work  of  the  greatest 
of  these  committees  into  thirteen  separate  annual 
bills  prepared  by  its  sub-committees.  The  rules 
first  recognized  this  division  by  enumerating  four 
general  appropriation  bills,  Sept.  14,  1837.  In  all 
the  period  of  nearly  a  century  the  amount  of  the 
appropriations,  swelled  suddenly  from  time  to  time 
by  war,  had  been  on  the  increase.  Excluding  pay- 
ments on  the  interest  and  principal  of  the  public 
debt,  these  are  the  figures:  — 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP. 


177 


1789 $    639,000 


1840-1845      .     .     $27,000,000 


1791-1800    . 

.      3,750,000 

Mexican  War  .       40,000,000 

1800-1810    . 

.      5,500,000 

1850-1855 

.       47,500,000 

War  of  1812 

.    25,500,000 

1851-1861 

.       67,000,000 

1815-1820    . 

.    16,500,000 

Civil  War 

.     713,750,000 

1825-1830   . 

.     13,000,000 

1866-1871 

.     189,000,000 

1830-1835    . 

.    17,000,000 

1878     .     . 

.     114,069,483 

Seminole  Wa 

r   .    30,500,000 

1879     .     . 

.     146,304,309 

Low-water  mark  in  the  reduction  from  the  war-foot- 
ing had  been  reached  in  1878,  and  with  the  next 
year  the  natural  upward  movement  of  peace  times 
had  begun.1     A  critical  turning-point  had  come. 

The  other  subject  which  needs  to  be  understood 
to  know  the  meaning  of  the  strife  among  the  com- 
mittees in  1880  is,  as  has  been  said,  the  Congres- 
sional experience  with  riders.  The  entire  history 
of  national  legislation  is  strung  with  attempts  on 
the  part  of  the  House  to  carry  through  laws  dis- 
tasteful to  the  Senate,  or  to  the  President,  or  to 
both,  by  attaching  them  to  the  general  appropria- 
tion bills.  That  ancient  English  example  of  for- 
cing on  this  wise  the  king  and  the  lords  has,  by  a 
defective  analogy,  been  a  very  vital  idea  with  the 
American  Representative.  The  Senate,  through 
its  power  of  amending  these  bills,  has  been  able  on 
its  part  to  tiy  coercion  upon  the  President  and  to 
retaliate  against  the  House  by  repayment  in  the 
same  coin.2     The  evil  was  not  so  prominent  in  the 

1  Cf.  article  by  Garfield,  cited  above. 

3  Cf.  Miss  C.  H.  Kerr's  "The  Origin  and  Development  of  the 
U.  S.  Senate,"  76-80. 


178  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

simple,  halcyon  years  of  the  early  Republic,  when 
appropriation  bills  were  fewer,  when  points  of  dif- 
ference among  the  three  branches  to  the  enact- 
ment of  laws  were  less  numerous,  when  they  were 
in  unanimous  political  accord  over  periods  long 
unbroken.  The  expansion  of  the  country  and  its 
government,  bringing  increase  of  conflicting  inte- 
rests and  more  frequent  reversals  of  party  control, 
has  created  such  powerful  temptations  to  use  the 
device  that  all  efforts  for  its  restriction  by  parlia- 
mentary laws  have  been  futile.  Riders  were  first 
forbidden  by  rule  in  1814.1  An  early  instance  of 
their  employment,  connected  with  the  complica- 
tions with  Spain  in  regard  to  Florida,  seems  to 
have  given  rise  to  a  standing  order  that  appropria- 
tions for  treaties  should  be  made  in  distinct  bills.2 
In  1837  the  House  provided  that  no  item  should 
be  reported  in  any  general  appropriation  bill,  "  or 
be  in  order  as  an  amendment  thereto,  for  any 
expenditure  not  previously  authorized  by  law."  3 
This,  however,  was  not  a  sign  of  reform,  but  the 
last  feeble  protest  of  a  pure  against  a  corrupt  era. 
In  it  is  discernible  the  hand  of  John  Quincy 
Adams.4  The  very  next  year,  in  an  attempt  to  in- 
crease the  emoluments  of  custom-house  officers,  this 
plain  prohibition  was  annulled  by  adding  to  it  the 

i  C.  A.,  April  8,  1814.  3  C.  D.,  Sept.  14, 1837. 

2  C.  D.,  Jan.  29,  30,  1819. 

4  Speech  of  J.  Q.  Adams,  CD.,  Dec.  10,  1835;  also  his  "Me- 
moirs," IX.,  261-264. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  179 

clauses,  "  unless  in  continuation  of  appropriations 
for  such  public  works  and  objects  as  are  already  in 
progress,  and  for  the  contingencies  for  carrying  on 
the  several  departments  of  the  government."  *  By 
such  admirable  rhetoric  the  spoils  system  had  its 
way !  The  self -contradictory  rule  slumbered  undis- 
turbed for  forty  years.  Under  its  friendly  lati- 
tude the  Salary  Grab  of  1873  rode  through  upon 
the  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial  Appro- 
priation Bill.  In  connection  with  the  Civil  War, 
and  the  problems  of  reconstruction,  ridel's  were 
most  numerous.2  The  Democrats,  in  1876,  with  the 
idea  that  riders  might  be  used  to  force  retrench- 
ment upon  the  Senate  and  the  Executive,  resolved 
to  make  this  old  rule  of  Martin  Van  Buren's  time 
work  downward  instead  of  upward.  They  added 
the  famous  "  Holman  Amendment,"  first  striking 
out  the  clause,  "and  for  the  contingencies  for 
carrying  on  the  several  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment;" then  inserting  the  words,  "nor  shall  any 
provision  in  any  such  bill,  or  amendment  thereto, 
changing  existing  law  be  in  order,  except  such 
as,  being  germane  to  the  subject  matter  of  the  bill, 
shall  retrench  expenditures."  3  This  the  present 
Republican  chairman  of  the  Appropriations  has 
termed  the  opening  of  the  Pandora's  box  of  legisla- 

i  C.  G.,  Mar.  7,  13,  1838. 

2  Article  on  Riders,  by  Alexander  Johnston,  in  Lalor's  "  Cyclo- 
pedia," III.,  642-645. 

»  C.  R.,  Dec.  25,  1875;  Jan.  17, 1876. 


180  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tive  confusion.1  So  equipped,  Samuel  J.  Randall, 
then  chairman  of  the  Appropriations,  proceeded 
to  make  his  reduction  of  thirty  million  dollars  in 
government  expenses.  The  Morning  Hour  had 
come  to  be  but  a  poor  shift  in  the  committee  sys- 
tem; and  in  the  four  years  from  1876  to  1880  this 
great  finance  committee,  encroaching  upon  the  le- 
gislative jurisdiction  of  all  the  other  committees, 
was  at  the  zenith  of  its  power.  The  formulation 
and  passage  of  the  thirteen  bills  of  which  it  had 
exclusive  charge  was  by  far  the  heaviest  part  of 
the  business  of  each  session.  It  had  inherited 
from  the  Ways  and  Means  the  right  to  claim  the 
floor  at  any  time  for  immediate  consideration  of  its 
reports.2  General  appropriation  bills  took  prece- 
dence of  all  others  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Union.3  Therefore  any  meas- 
ure to  which  the  majority  of  its  thirteen  members 
and  the  Speaker  would  assent  was  assured  of  con- 
sideration in  the  House,  and  might  even  be  forced 
through  as  a  rider;  and  —  greatest  element  of  its 
strength  —  any  measure  to  which  the  majority  of 
its  thirteen  members  refused  their  assent  was  as- 
sured of  a  sharp  veto  upon  the  question  of  consid- 
eration.4      Two  hundred  and  seventy  men  were 


i  C.  R.,  Dec.  15, 1885;  remarks  of  Joseph  G. -Cannon. 
2  C.  G.,  Mar.  2, 1865.  3  c.  D.,  Sept.  14, 1837. 

4  C.  R.,  remarks  of  Messrs.  Garfield,  Kasson,  Hale,  and  Hurl- 
burt,  Jan.  17, 1876 ;  of  Messrs.  Mills  and  Reed,  April  9, 1879,  and 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  181 

"under  the  guardianship"  of  thirteen.  To  the 
Appropriations  could  well  be  applied  Sunset  Cox's 
quotation  from  Spenser  :  — 

Each  easy  to  be  known  by  his  own  vismomie, 
But  Jove  above  them  all  by  his  great  looks  and 
powers  imperial. 

Such  conditions  could  last  only  a  brief  time. 
The  attempt  of  the  House  to  make  itself  more 
powerful  against  the  other  branches  of  the  govern- 
ment, by  conferring  almost  absolute  power  upon 
a  small  coterie  of  its  members,  failed  because  the 
enemy  attacked  was  too  well  fortified  by  constitu- 
tional bulwarks ;  because  the  Senators,  disregarding 
party  allegiance,  united  to  maintain  the  prestige 
of  their  chamber.  The  recoil  brought  disor- 
ganization in  the  House  ranks,  with  rebellion  of 
the  other  committees  against  the  Appropriations.1 
Stronger  cause  of  revolution  yet,  new  political 
alignments  were  in  progress  ;  the  Democratic  party 
was  divided  against  itself  upon  the  tariff  and  upon 
internal  improvements  ;  the  battle  was  on  between 
railways  and  waterways.  Ways  and  Means,  Roads 
and  Canals,  and  Commerce  had  struggled  forty 
years  for  jurisdiction  over  the  River  and  Harbor 
Bill.  From  1865  to  1879  the  Appropriations  had 
more  or  less  control  over  this  leviathan.     Though 

Feb.  12,  1880;  of  Messrs.  Cannon,  Morrison,  and  Singleton,  Dec. 
15,  1885  ;  of  Messrs.  Reed  and  Morrison,  Dec.  18,  1885. 

i  C.  R.,  remarks  of  Hilary  A.  Herbert,  Dec.  16,  1885. 


182  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

its  preparation  had,  for  want  of  time,  been  turned 
over  by  the  Appropriations  to  the  Commerce,  the 
former,  by  a  comity  between  the  two,  had  retained 
control  of  the  total  amount  to  be  expended  in  the 
bill,  and  of  the  right  to  manage  it  when  reported 
to  the  House.1  But  during  some  four  years  prior 
to  1879  the  Commerce,  mainly  under  the  strong 
leadership  of  John  H.  Reagan,  had  broken  away 
from  this  arrangement,  and  reported  the  River  and 
Harbor  Bill  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  House  under 
a  suspension  of  the  rules,  without  re-reference  to 
the  Appropriations.  In  1879,  upon  an  attempt  by 
the  Appropriations  to  increase  the  majority  for  such 
suspension  from  a  two-thirds  to  a  three-fourths 
vote,  the  Commerce  not  only  repelled  the  attack, 
but  secured  the  rights  of  independent  control  over 
the  Bill,  of  freely  adding  riders  to  it,  and  of  man- 
aging it  under  equal  privileges  with  the  other 
general  appropriation  bills.2  On  this  occasion,  in 
fulfillment  of  frequent  forecasts  of  preceding  years, 
two  other  committees,  the  Banking  and  Currency, 
and  the  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures,  also  se- 
cured the  right  to  report  at  any  time.3 

Every  one  of  the  three  Democrats  and  two  Re- 

i  C.  R.,  Remarks  of  Mr.  Dawes,  Feb.  8,  1873;  of  Mr.  Garfield, 
April  9,  1879. 

2  C.  R.,  April  9,  1879;  the  vote  for  the  new  rule  stood:  yeas, 
146,  nays,  97 ;  the  vote  against  the  power  of  adding  riders,  yeas, 
110,  nays,  128. 

3  C.  R.,  April  9, 1879;  vote:  yeas,  129,  nays,  110. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  183 

publicans  charged  with  the  revision  and  codifica- 
tion of  the  Rules  in  the  following  summer's  recess 
was  opposed  to  these  new  developments.  Their 
notable  code,  presented  at  the  next  session,  pro- 
posed to  re-establish  the  Appropriations  in  control 
of  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill,  and  to  do  away  with 
the  lately  acquired  privileges  of  the  Banking  and 
Currency  and  the  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Meas- 
ures. The  battle  was  on  again,  fiercer  and  more 
prolonged.  After  months  of  wordy  war,  the  Com- 
merce again  prevailed ;  and  the  distribution  of  the 
appropriation  bills,  as  a  tribute  to  the  farmers,  was 
carried  yet  farther  in  the  right  of  the  Agricul- 
ture to  prepare  and  manage  the  new  agricultural 
bill.  The  wall  was  broken  down  ;  three  committees 
now  got  ready  the  budget  on  the  side  of  expen- 
ditures, where  one  had  controlled  for  ninety  years 
before.  The  distribution  was  to  go  on  until,  in 
1887,  there  would  be  eight  such  committees,  and 
the  Appropriations  would  be  shorn  down  to  the 
management  of  six  bills.1  The  privilege  of  report- 
ing at  any  time,  which  had  belonged  to  but  four 
committees  from  1789  to  1880,  was  to  be  extended 
until  it  should  apply,  in  1896,  with  restrictions  as 
to  subject  matters  to  be  reported  upon,  to  sixteen 
committees.2      The   Commerce,    however,    in   the 

1  Namely,  the  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial ;  the  Sun- 
dry Civil ;  the  Fortifications;  the  District  of  Columbia;  the  Pen- 
sions; the  Deficiencies.    Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XI.,  3. 

2  Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XI.,  57. 


184  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

hour  of  its  triumph,  yielded  the  bill  for  which  it 
had  contended  so  impetuously  to  the  new  Com- 
mittee on  Rivers  and  Harbors. 

A  diversion  at  this  point  may  dispose  of  the 
later  experience  of  the  House  in  the  matter  of  legis- 
lative riders  on  general  appropriations.  Through- 
out all  the  struggles  since  the  passage  of  the 
Holman  amendment,  certain  leaders  in  both  the 
great  parties  have  been  urging  an  entire  renuncia- 
tion of  the  practice.  Their  attitude  is  well  voiced 
in  the  ringing  words  of  Garfield :  "  Let  the  Ap- 
propriations Committee  be  the  great  auditing  com- 
mittee of  the  House,  to  do  their  work  under  law, 
and  let  the  rest  of  us,  in  our  several  committee 
duties,  do  the  legislation  for  the  House."  *  The 
Democratic  party  has  sought  from  time  to  time  to 
narrow  the  application  of  the  Holman  amendment 
by  fastening  on  restrictive  clauses,  all  in  the  line 
of  retrenchment.2  In  1885  a  combination  of  Dem- 
ocrats and  Republicans,  led  by  Messrs.  Morrison 
and  Reed,  and  opposed  by  Messrs.  Holman,  Ran- 
dall, and  others,  struck  out  this  regulation,  re- 
turned to  the  old  rule  of  1837,  and  strictly  forbade 
riders  either  of  increase  or  decrease,  except  for 
public  works  in  progress.  The  Democratic  Party 
reinserted  the  Holman  rule   for  1891-1895.     In 


i  C.  R.,  Feb.  3, 1880. 

2  C.  R.,  Jan.  18, 1876 ;  Feb.  19, 1876 ;  Sept.  2,  1893 ;  53 :  2,  Rules 
ofH.  of  R.,  XXI.,2. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  185 

the  Fifty-first,  Fifty-fourth,  and  Fifty-fifth  Con- 
gresses the  Republican  party  has  declared  ad- 
herence to  the  policy  of  permitting  no  riders 
whatever ;  and  in  the  two  latter  Houses,  at  least, 
its  chairmen  have  enforced  the  rule  constantly.1 
The  thought  of  true-hearted,  honest  John  Quincy 
Adams,  though  uttered  in  doubt  and  distress, 
though  unheeded  by  majorities  for  half  a  century, 
was  not  uttered  in  vain. 

To  return  to  that  critical  point  at  which  the 
House  had  arrived  in  1880,  the  student  may  well 
pause,  as  it  did,  and  ask :  Is  it  wise  and  best  to 
distribute  the  appropriation  bills  among  the  com- 
mittees ?  Upon  that  question  the  ablest  Repre- 
sentatives ranged  themselves  with  disregard  for 
party  lines.  The  distribution  prevailed  despite 
the  opposition  of  conservative  statesmen  whose 
names  are  held  in  the  highest  national  esteem. 
It  came  apparently  by  forces  as  resistless  and  for 
reasons  as  cogent  as  those  which  have  brought 
about  on  the  larger  scale  the  division  of  the  entire 
legislative  field  among  the  standing  committees  or 
the  division  of  the  entire  executive  field  among 
the  departments  and  bureaus.  The  arguments, 
pro  and  con,  in  the  two  processes  are  substantially 
the  same,  and  need  not  be  restated.2     Not  only  is 

i  1889-1891,  1895-1899. 

2  Cf.  arguments  for  and  against  the  division  of  legislative 
business  among  many  committees,  pages  144-147 ;  also  the  ma- 
jority and  the  minority  reports  of  the  Rules  as  to  the  scattering 


186  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

the  distribution  now  a  permanent  feature  in  the 
House,  but  it  will  probably  prevail  in  the  Senate, 
where  for  several  years  the  movement  in  its  favor 
has  been  powerful.  The  final  quietly  accepted 
prevalence  of  the  new  order  indicates  that  the 
question  has  come  to  its  right  settlement.  His- 
tory is  ever  proving  and  repeating  that  the  fail- 
ure and  disappearance  of  old  restraints  against 
wrong,  though  signalized  for  a  time  by  feebly 
checked  abuses,  are  shortly  followed  by  the  ap- 
pearance of  other  safeguards  efficient  for  the  new 
conditions,  and  insuring  in  the  long  run  a  better 
order  than  that  which  has  passed  away.  The 
record  of  the  House  of  Representatives  in  respect 
of  this  change  in  its  methods  of  financiering  has 
proved  no  exception. 

The  fact  that  it  has  proved  no  exception  will  be 
made  plainer  by  a  history  of  the  use  of  Special 
Orders. 

Through  the  procedure  prescribed  for  these,  the 
unity  of  legislation  has  been  in  process  of  better 
establishment  out  of  the  disorders  of  1880.  At 
this  point  it  is  well  to  remind  the  patient  reader  of 
a  statement  made  above ;  namely,  that  two  prac- 
tices have  been  working  for  the  subversion  of  the 
old  stereotyped  equality  of  the  insignificant  bill 

of  the  appropriation  bills  and  the  debate  thereon,  C.  R.,  Dec. 
15-18, 1885 ;  May  5, 1896 ;  also  articles  on  Spending  Public  Money, 
by  Messrs.  Reed  and  Holman  in  North  American  Review,  154 : 
319-335. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  187 

with  the  tariff  proposition,  and  of  the  committee 
of  dead  issues  with  the  committee  of  burning  ques- 
tions. The  main  facts  have  been  set  forth  with 
regard  to  one  of  these  two  practices  ;  i.e.,  the  grant- 
ing of  the  right  to  report  at  any  time  to  certain  com- 
mittees. To  trace  the  history  of  the  other  in  the 
use  of  Special  Orders  is  now  the  further  task.  From 
1789  to  1822  any  Representative,  with  unanimous 
consent  or  with  a  simple  majority  vote  for  suspen- 
sion of  the  rules,  could  have  any  bill  or  resolution 
made  a  special  order  for  a  specified  date.  The  privi- 
lege does  not  seem  to  have  been  of  high  value  ;  for 
when  the  day  came  the  same  majority  was  likely, 
under  pressure  of  competing  measures,  to  set  aside 
or  to  postpone  the  special  order  "  until  to-mor- 
row." In  1822,  however,  suspension  of  the  rules 
was  made  conditional  upon  a  two-thirds  majority. 
Thenceforth  every  measure  must  await  its  turn 
unless  it  could  pass  the  severer  ordeal.  Effort  to 
return  to  the  simple  majority  plan  failed  in  1828 ; 
instead  the  rule  was  reenforced  by  another  clause.1 
It  was  a  crude  sifting  process,  which  proved  work- 
able for  a  quarter  of  a  century.  For  example,  the 
first  session  of  the  Twenty-fourth  Congress,  1835- 
1837,  acted  upon  the  appropriation  bills  and  sev- 
enteen other  measures  as  special  orders.  Dec. 
18,  1847,  the  motion  to  suspend  was  further  lim- 

i  C.  D.,  May  5,  6,  1828;  and  20  :  2,  H.  J.,  Appendix,  Rules  of 
the  H.  of  R.,  104. 


188  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ited  to  Mondays  after  the  Morning  Hour,  save 
during  the  last  ten  days  of  a  session.  This  form 
remained  unaltered  until  March  16,1860.  So  far 
there  had  been  no  discrimination  between  the  com- 
mittees as  to  the  method  of  procuring  special  or- 
ders ;  but  now  the  Ways  and  Means  was  favored, 
as  regarded  the  appropriation  bills,  with  the  old- 
time  privilege  of  making  special  orders  by  a  simple 
majority  vote.  During  the  struggle  with  President 
Johnson  and  the  adoption  of  the  impeachment  res- 
olutions, this  motion  for  suspension  of  the  rules 
was  declared  to  take  precedence  of  all  others  save 
one  motion  to  adjourn,  a  substantial  blow  at  the 
filibuster.1  The  ground  for  this  decision  was  the 
scope  of  the  motion  to  suspend,  which  included  all 
the  rules  of  the  House.2  To  avoid  voting  upon 
distasteful  political  questions  the  dominant  party 
decreed,  Jan.  20,  1874,  that  motions  for  suspen- 
sion, to  be  entertained,  should  be  seconded  by  a 
majority.  April  9,  1879,  the  right  of  the  Ways 
and  Means  to  make  its  bills  special  orders  by  a 
simple  majority  vote  was  extended  to  the  Bank- 
ing and  Currency  and  the  Coinage,  Weights,  and 
Measures.  Arguing  that  the  filibuster  was  prac- 
tically wasting  Mondays,  the  code  of  1880  limited 
the  entertaining  of  the  motion  for  suspension  of 
the  rules  to  two  Mondays  instead  of  all  the  Mon- 
days of  a  month,  and  to  the  last  six  instead  of  the 

i  C.  G.,  Feb.  24,  25,  1868.  2  c.  G.,  Mar.  2,  1867. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  189 

last  ten  clays  of  a  session.1  Upon  one  of  the  two 
Mondays  individuals  were  to  have  the  right ;  upon 
the  other,  committees.  It  also  left  out  the  provis- 
ion which  enabled  the  three  above-named  commit- 
tees to  make  special  orders  of  their  bills  at  any 
time  by  a  simple  majority  vote.2  The  codifiers 
maintained  that,  in  providing  their  scheme  of  call- 
ing the  committees  for  reference  of  reports  to  cal- 
endars, and  in  providing  also  a  rule  giving  the 
Ways  and  Means  and  the  Appropriations  the  right 
to  move  after  the  Morning  Hour  to  go  into  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  to  consider  a  particular  reve- 
nue or  appropriation  bill,  they  would  u  get  rid  of 
special  orders  piling  themselves  one  upon  another 
as  the  session  progresses."  3  Vain  persuasion !  the 
coming  years  were  to  be  full  of  outcry  against  their 
crowded,  unwieldy  calendars. 

By  way  of  summary,  a  survey  of  the  situation 
under  the  newly  inaugurated  rules  of  1880  shows 
—  with  an  important  exception  to  be  described 
later  —  a  certain  body  of  favored  legislation  coming 
from  eight  of  the  committees,  and  comprising  the 
thirteen  appropriation  bills,  the  right  of  a  Repre- 
sentative to  his  seat,  measures  raising  revenue, 
action  on  enrolled  bills,  on  printing,  and  on  expen- 
ditures from  the  contingent  fund  of  the  House. 

1  C.  R.,  Feb.  27,  1880,  remarks  of  Messrs.  Frye  and  Weaver. 

2  C.  R.,  April  9, 1879. 

»  C.  R.,  Feb.  11, 1880,  remarks  of  Messrs.  Mills  and  Frye. 


190  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

Besides  must  be  named  conference  reports,  and  the 
business  of  the  Committee  on  the  Library.  Part 
of  this  will  be  perceived  to  be  simple  routine.  The 
majority  could  push  it  forward  for  action  through 
the  rights  of  reporting  at  any  time,  and  of  demand- 
ing precedence  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  State  of  the  Union.1  But  what  of  the  legions 
of  other  measures  presented  by  these  or  by  the 
thirty-seven  great  committees  which  enjoyed  no 
such  privileges  ?  How  could  any  one  of  them  be 
reached?  A  report  from  the  Judiciary,  or  the 
Naval  Affairs,  or  the  Pensions,  for  instance  ?  The 
regular  way  was  to  follow  the  calendars  in  strict 
chronological  order  —  when  the  calendars  could  be 
taken  up  in  the  regular  way !  An  important  bill 
might  never  be  gotten  at  because  a  host  of  insig- 
nificant ones  were  ahead.  Or,  if  it  were  finally 
reached  by  patient  manipulation  of  legislative  ma- 
chinery, its  enemies  might  sweep  it  from  the  floor, 
and  fatally  delay  it  by  the  intrusion  of  favored  sub- 
jects. The  resort  to  special  orders  was  therefore 
as  necessary  as  ever.  At  the  first  session  of  the 
Forty-seventh  Congress  there  were  twenty-five.  In 
early  times  they  had  been  made  by  suspension  of 
the  rules ;  but  now,  because  of  almost  prohibitory 
restrictions  on  that  method,  they  were  obtained 
mainly  by  unanimous  consent.  Experience  has 
shown  that  two-thirds  and  unanimous  consent  re- 

i  46:  2,  Rules  of  H.  of  R.,  XI.,  47;  XVI.,  9;  XXIV.,  5. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  191 

quirements  in  lawmaking  put  too  much  power  in 
the  hands  of  small  and  irresponsible  minorities. 
The  Constitution  and  the  people  hold  that  political 
party  which  has  one  more  than  half  of  the  votes  in 
the  House  accountable  for  what  the  House  does  and 
for  what  it  fails  to  do.  All  the  development  of  a 
hundred  years  has  been  steadily  strengthening  this 
party  responsibility.  In  the  years  that  immedi- 
ately followed  1880  the  majority  was  groping  about 
for  its  rightful  control  over  a  large  part  of  the  bus- 
iness, a  control  which  the  rules  failed  to  supply. 
The  Pound  Rule,  by  reviving  the  Morning  Hour 
in  a  practical  form,  gave  some  relief  from  1882 
to  1886,  and  proved  a  stepping-stone  to  the  final 
solution.  It  came  to  be  the  custom  for  a  Repre- 
sentative, upon  the  Monday  call  of  the  States  and 
Territories  prescribed  by  the  rules,  to  introduce  a 
resolution  to  make  a  bill,  or  bills  —  say  from  the 
Committee  on  Naval  Affairs — a  special  order  for 
an  advanced  date.  The  resolution  would  go  to  the 
Committee  on  Naval  Affairs.  When  its  turn  came 
in  the  Morning  Hour  the  Naval  Affairs  would  pre- 
sent this  resolution,  and  try  to  get  for  it  the  neces- 
sary two-thirds  vote.  This  round-about  proceeding 
suggested  the  way  to  new  and  far-reaching  devel- 
opments. 

The  time  had  now  arrived  when  three  lines  of 
parliamentary  growth,  stretching  far  back  into  the 
annals  of  the  House,  were  to  be  brought  together 


192  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

to  form  a  new  axis  for  legislative  methods.  These 
three  lines  had  produced  the  regularly  privileged 
business,  the  favored  business  of  the  political  hour, 
and  the  primely  favored  committee.  Two  of  them 
have  been  followed  under  the  heads  of  the  Right 
to  Report  at  any  Time  and  the  Special  Order. 
The  other  must  be  traced  up  to  1886  for  an  under- 
standing of  the  results  of  their  blending  ;  and  that 
other  is  the  history  of  the  Committee  on  Rules. 
Committees  for  this  object  have  been  raised  by  the 
House  at  every  Congress,  with  few  exceptions, 
since  the  beginning  of  the  government.  After  their 
first  establishment,  however,  and  prior  especially  to 
1860,  the  rules  were  enlarged  mainly  by  amend- 
ments presented  by  individual  Representatives,  and 
required  to  lie  ou  the  table  for  at  least  one  day.1 
The  limitation  of  one  day's  notice  implied  that  the 
amendment  could  of  right  be  called  up  at  any 
time  after  the  lapse  of  an  adjournment.  Select 
committees  on  rules  were  hampered  by  difficulty 
in  persuading  the  House  to  consider  their  reports. 
The  Standing  Committee  on  Rules,  of  nine  mem- 
bers, an  outgrowth  of  the  protracted  speakership 
contest  in  1849,  lasted  through  two  Congresses.2 
June  14,  1858,  a  motion  was  made  and  carried  for 
a  select  committee  on  rules  to  consist  of  four  mem- 
bers, together  with  the  Speaker,  James  L.  Orr  of 
South  Carolina.     The  presiding  officer  had  never 

1  C.  A.,  Nov.  13,  1794.        2  C.  G.,  Dec.  27,  1849;  Dec.  5,  1853. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  193 

before  served  as  a  committeeman,  nor  has  he  on 
any  occasion  since  belonged  to  any  other  commit- 
tee. The  man  who  deserves  to  be  remembered  as 
the  author  of  this  brilliant  innovation  was  Warren 
Winslow,  ex-Speaker  of  the  North  Carolina  Senate. 
From  that  time,  without  fail,  the  Speaker  has  been 
the  stanch  friend,  the  powerful  central  figure,  of 
the  Committee  on  Rules.  Through  his  favorable 
rulings  it  has  gradually  risen  to  its  present  pri- 
macy in  the  committee  system.  Exactly  when  its 
reports  were  first  regarded  as  privileged  above 
others  is  difficult  to  determine.  Speaker  Blaine 
declared,  during  the  filibustering  over  the  Civil 
Rights  Bill  in  1875,  that  they  were  in  order  at 
any  time,  and  also  hinted,  though  not  positively  so 
ruling,  that  dilatory  motions  on  a  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Rules  could  be  declared  out  of  order 
by  a  Speaker  on  the  high  ground  that  they  sub- 
vert and  impair  the  Constitutional  functions  of  the 
House,  an  idea  which  was  to  become  a  cardinal 
principle  with  the  Republicans  for  the  suppression 
of  filibustering.1  In  the  code  of  1880,  the  select 
committee  of  five  changed  itself  into  a  standing 
committee  without  any  notice  to  that  effect  in  the 
accompanying  report,  although  other  changes  were 
carefully  commented  upon.  The  clauses  so  estab- 
lishing the  committee  were  noted  as  having  been 

1  C.  R.,  Jan.  27,  1875;  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  Ar- 
ticle I.,  Section  V.,  Clause  2. 


194  CONGEES SIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

framed  from  parts  of  previously  existing  rules. 
Further,  the  clause  which  defined  the  powers  and 
duties  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  was  much  more 
emphatic  in  form  than  all  the  clauses  which  de- 
fined the  powers  and  duties  of  other  committees ; 
e.g.,  the  clause  for  the  Committee  on  Education 
and  Labor  read:  "  to  education  and  labor,  to  the 
Committee  on  Education  and  Labor,"  but  that  for 
the  Committee  on  Rules :  "  All  proposed  action 
touching  the  rules  and  joint  rules  shall  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Rules."  These  facts  entirely 
escaped  notice  in  the  succeeding  protracted  strug- 
gle over  other  provisions  of  the  code.  In  the  light 
of  after  developments  the  thought  will  present 
itself  that  those  five  skilled  parliamentarians,  sit- 
ting by  the  summer  sea,  canvassed  the  fall  of  the 
Committee  on  Appropriations  from  its  supremacy 
and  the  slender  chance  they  had  of  securing  its 
reinstatement,  were  troubled  for  the  legislative 
chaos  which  seemed  imminent,  and  decided,  by 
these  covertly  inserted  provisions,  to  cast  an  an- 
chor to  the  windward.1  Immediately  upon  its  re- 
establishment  as  a  standing  committee  with  such 
a  strong  footing,  rulings  followed  which  tended  to 
secure  the  place  of  highest  privilege  for  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules.  Feb.  9,  1881,  Speaker  Randall 
decided  that  "  the  practice  of  the  House  had  been 

1  For  the  names  of  these  codifiers  and  the  importance  of  their 
work,  consult  the  opening  paragraphs  of  Chapter  II. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  195 

uniformly  to  allow  the  Committee  on  Rules  to  re- 
port at  any  time  when  it  was  as  to  the  manner  of 
conducting  the  business  of  the  House."  This  was 
expressly  confirmed  by  new  rules  at  the  opening 
of  the  next  session.1  Then,  less  than  two  months 
later,  Speaker  Keifer  declared  a  proposition  to 
refer  an  amendment  of  the  rules  to  a  committee 
other  than  the  Rules  out  of  order.2  In  May  fol- 
lowing came  another  leading  decision.  Thomas 
B.  Reed  presented  a  report  of  amendments  to  the 
rules,  and  the  Democratic  minority  sought  to  pre- 
vent its  adoption  by  filibustering.  Thereupon  Mr. 
Reed  raised  the  point  of  order  that  dilatory  mo- 
tions were  not  allowable  upon  a  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Rules.  After  four  hours  of  debate 
the  Speaker  gave  judgment  that  the  right  of  the 
House  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
to  "determine  the  rules  of  its  proceedings"  "could 
not  be  impaired  by  the  indefinite  repetition  of  dila- 
tory motions."  3 

Thus  by  1886,  at  the  time  when  the  committees 
had  found  a  way  of  using  other  days  besides  "  sus- 
pension days  "  for  making  special  orders,  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules  had  come,  in  the  matter  of  right 
of  way,  to  be  equal  with,  if  not  superior  to,  the 
most  favored  committee  of  the  House,  and  to  pos- 
sess an  exemption  —  that  against  dilatory  tactics  — 

i  C.  R.,  Dec.  19, 1881.       2  C.  R.,  Jan.  11,  1882. 
a  C.  R.,  May  29,  1882;  47  :1.,  H.  J.,  1362. 


196  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

which  had  never  been  accorded  to  any  other  com- 
mittee. But  its  field  of  jurisdiction  was  still  nar- 
row. The  step  necessary  to  the  broadening  of  its 
powers  was  then  taken,  as  has  been  intimated,  by 
a  joining  of  three  lines  of. parliamentary  growth  so 
that  it  should  have  the  selection  of  business  as  de- 
veloped in  the  history  of  the  Special  Order.  Pre- 
cise facts  as  to  this  momentous  change,  and  at  the 
same  time  a  fair  example  of  a  special  order,  are 
best  presented  by  quoting  the  records :  — 

(House  Journal,  Monday,  July  5,  1886.) 

"  By  Mr.  Morrison :  a  resolution  fixing  a  day  for  the 
consideration  of  bills  presented  by  the  Committee  on  Ways 
and  Means ;  to  the  same  committee  "  (i.e.  to  the  Rules).1 

(Congressional  Record,  Saturday,  July  10,  1886.) 

"  Mr.  Morrison.  I  present  a  privileged  report  from  the 
Committee  on  Rules.     The  Clerk  read  as  follows  : 

'The  Committee  on  Rules,  to  which  was  referred  the 
resolution  fixing  a  day  for  the  consideration  of  business  re- 
ported from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  has  had 
the  same  under  consideration,  and  reports  it  back  with  a 
substitute  therefor,  as  follows  : 

<  Resolved,  That  Tuesday,  the  13th  of  July,  immediately 
after  the  reading  of  the  Journal,  be,  and  is  hereby,  set 
apart  for  the  consideration  of  such  business  as  may  be  pre- 
sented by  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  not  to  in- 

1  According  to  custom,  as  described  above,  this  should  have 
been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means.  A  similar 
resolution  had  been  sent  to  the  Committee  on  Rules  three  months 
before.    H.  J.,  Mar.  16,  1886. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  197 

elude  any  bill  raising  revenue;  and  if  any  bill  shall  be 
under  consideration  and  not  disposed  of  when  the  House 
adjourns  on  that  day,  the  consideration  of  such  bill  shall 
continue  from  day  to  day,  immediately  after  the  reading  of 
the  Journal,  until  disposed  of.'  "  * 

"  Mr.  Hewitt :  I  make  the  point  of  order  on  the  resolu- 
tion. 

"  The  Speaker,  pro  tempore  (Mr.  Crisp) :  What  is  the 
point  of  order? 

"  Mr.  Hewitt :  My  point  of  order  is  that  it  is  not  compe- 
tent for  the  Committee  on  Rules  to  report  in  the  nature  of 
a  rule  a  regulation  of  debate  which  is  intended  for  a  single 
day  and  a  single  occasion  pro  hac  vice.  That  is  not  a 
rule." 

Mr.  Hewitt  pointed  out  very  plainly  the  conse- 
quences which  were  to  follow  from  the  new  proce- 
dure ;  three  men  on  the  Rules  could  take  any  bill 
from  any  calendar,  and  ask  a  majority  of  the  House 
at  any  time  to  give  it  consideration ;  committees 
could  combine  for  this  purpose ;  in  the  case  in 
hand,  since  three  of  the  five  men  on  the  Rules, 
Messrs.  Morrison,  Reed,  and  Hitchcock,  were  also 
members  of  the  Ways  and  Means,  the  Ways  and 
Means  was  "  running  the  Rules."  Mr.  Morrison's 
party  compeers,  Messrs.  Randall  and  Mills,  spoke 
in  his  support.  The  Speaker,  pro  tempore,  ruled  : 
"  That  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  would  be  pro 

1  The  particular  measure  intended  to  be  reached  was  a  bill  to 
put  out  at  interest  the  idle  surplus  in  the  U.  S.  Treasury. 


198  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tanto  a  change  of  the  rules,  and  that  the  proper 
method  of  making  such  a  change  was  upon  a  re- 
port of  the  Committee  on  Rules."  l  At  the  follow- 
ing session  the  Speaker  waived  a  point  of  order 
that  such  a  proposition  from  the  Committee  must 
lie  over  one  day  in  compliance  with  the  regulations 
of  1794,  and  declared  that  a  certain  special  order 
proposed  by  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  was 
not  a  change  of  the  rules  of  the  House.2  Upon  an 
attempt  of  David  B.  Henderson  to  secure  conside- 
ration for  a  special  order  by  sending  it  to  the  table 
for  one  day,  according  to  the  ancient  manner  of 
amending  the  rules,  on  Feb.  15,  1887,  came  the 
final  extensive  ruling  which  settled  that  thence- 
forth special  orders  must  go  to  and  come  back 
from  the  Committee  on  Rules  alone.  Such,  with 
changing  men  and  times,  was  Speaker  John  G. 
Carlisle's  reversal  of  a  directly  opposite  decision 
by  Speaker  James  K.  Polk  half  a  century  before.3 
The  Fifty-first  Congress,  upon  its  assemblage  under 
the  lead  of  Mr.  Reed,  who  had  taken  an  active 
and  prominent  part  for  the  accomplishment  of  all 
these  radical  changes,  embodied  them  in  the  code, 
and  they  have  now  come  to  be  fully  acquiesced  in 
by  both  great  political  parties.     The  Democrats,  in 

1  C.  R.  and  H.  J.,  July  10,  1886.  Such  ancient  expressions 
from  imperial  Rome  as  pro  tanto,  germane,  et  cetera,  injected  into 
the  House  rules  and  rulings,  have  naturally  advanced  the  "  one- 
man  power"! 

2  C.  R.,  Dec.  8,  1886.    '  3  h.  J.,  Jan.  26, 1836. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  199 

1893,  further  added  to  the  Committee  on  Rules  a 
power  which  had  never  before  been  accorded  to 
any  committee ;  namely,  the  continuing  right  to 
sit  during  the  House  sessions,  and  to  require  im- 
mediate consideration  when  it  makes  reports.  A 
ruling  of  Speaker  Crisp,  followed  in  the  Fifty- 
fourth  Congress  by  Speaker  Reed,  gives  this  su- 
preme committee  original  as  well  as  secondary 
jurisdiction  over  the  legislative  business  by  declar- 
ing that  it  can  report  a  special  order  which  has 
not  been  previously  committed  to  it  by  a  resolu- 
tion from  an  individual  or  from  another  com- 
mittee.1 

After  this  fashion,  while  within  and  without 
Congress  various  artificial  plans  for  executive  com- 
mittees or  cabinets  have  been  in  the  air,  the  House 
has  followed  the  old  race  method  of  building  the 
present  and  the  future  upon  the  past  by  taking 
an  already  existing  institution,  and,  little  by  little, 
reshaping  it  to  fit  new  needs  as  they  have  arisen. 
In  the  long  stretch  of  a  century  some  rudimen- 
tary movements  by  way  of  delegating  governing 
powers  to  other  committees  have  not  been  want- 
ing. Seven  committees  have  charge  of  matters 
pertaining  exclusively  to  the  House.2  The  three 
Elections  decide  who  shall  be  of  its  family :  the 
Accounts  has  charge  of  its  purse ;   the  Ventila- 

i  C.  R.  and  H.  J.,  Sept.  20,  1893;  Jan.  5,  1894. 
2  Appendix  II. 


200  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tion  and  Acoustics  provides  for  its  health ;  the 
Mileage  orders  its  traveling  expenses ;  the  Rules 
directs  its  labors  and  its  entertainment.  The  Ac- 
counts determines  which  committees  shall  have 
clerks,  and  which  not;  the  Judiciary,  because  of 
its  legalism  and  of  its  independent  field,  has  more 
than  once  temporarily  exercised  arbitrating  func- 
tions which  now  belong  to  the  Rules ;  the  Ways 
and  Means,  in  continuance  of  an  ancient  English 
custom,  annually  goes  through  the  form  of  divid- 
ing the  subjects  of  the  President's  message  among 
its  fellow  committees.1 

To  analyze,  with  some  repetition  of  what  has 
been  stated,  the  character  and  power  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rules :  — 

Like  the  other  committees,  it  is  chosen  by  the 
Speaker,  and  not  by  ballot  of  the  House  ;  its  mem- 
bership is  from  the  two  leading  political  parties ; 
at  its  sessions  a  majority  vote  determines  the  ex- 
tent of  its  activity  within  its  own  field.  It  has 
always  drawn  to  itself  the  chief  political  leaders 
of  the  House,  as  well  as  the  ablest  parliamenta- 
rians.    Its  power  is  both  negative  and  positive. 

Because  of  the  vast  demands  made  upon  Con- 
gress, -of  the  comparatively  limited  ability  by 
appropriations  and  otherwise  to  meet  them,  and 
of  the  want  even  of  sufficient  time  for  their  con- 
sideration, by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  legisla- 

i  C.  R.,  Dec.  24,  1895. 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  201 

tion  broached  must  be  unattended  to  or  deferred ; 
and  the  Committee  on  Rules  is  in  a  position  to 
exercise  the  lion's  share  of  the  veto  power  which 
decides  what  legislative  proposals  shall  be  rejected. 
Therein  lies  the  greater  element  of  its  strength. 
If  it  determines  to  pigeon-hole  a  bill  upon  the 
calendar,  it  needs  only  to  maintain  silence,  or  to 
engage  or  cajole  the  House  with  other  measures. 
If  a  proposition  to  which  it  is  hostile  is  on  the  eve 
of  being  brought  upon  the  floor  by  another  com- 
mittee, it  may  exercise  its  superior  privilege  to 
claim  attention  for  different  business.  If  the  fili- 
buster is  abroad,  and  it  is  in  sympathy  with  him, 
it  may,  as  the  only  authority  which  can  check  his 
career  by  a  special  order,  simply  neglect  to  exer- 
cise its  functions.  As  to  forbidding  changes  in 
the  rules,  its  will  is  almost  absolute.  It  is  the 
only  channel  through  which  amendments  of  them 
in  the  first  degree  may  reach  the  House.1  For  this 
reason,  while  other  committees  have  been  doubling 
their  membership,  it  has  remained,  from  1858  to 
1898,  to  quote  an  envious  Representative  —  "the 

1  "In  the  first  degree;"  i.e.,  referring  to  the  parliamentary 
rule  that  the  main  question  is  suhject  to  one  amendment  at  a 
time,  commonly  called  a  "first  amendment,"  to  which  amend- 
ment itself  one  amendment  at  a  time  may  be  pending  in  the  sec- 
ond degree,  commonly  called  a  "  second  amendment."  The 
Committee  on  Rules  possesses  the  exclusive  privilege  of  bringing 
the  subject  of  change  before  the  House  by  offering  "  first  amend- 
ments "  to  the  rules ;  but  when  it  does  offer  them,  the  members  of 
the  House  at  large  can  present  "second  amendments." 


202  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

sacred  committee  of  five."  It  never  reports  a  prop- 
osition for  increase  of  its  own  size  ;  and  the  only 
opportunity  any  individual  member  has  of  asking 
the  majority  to  add  to  its  number  is  when,  per- 
chance once  in  two  years,  it  offers  an  amendment 
to  that  section  of  the  code  which  enumerates  the 
committees,  and  fixes  their  sizes.  Similarly  the 
case  stands  as  to  all  other  efforts  for  limiting  or 
transferring  its  jurisdiction  or  privileges.  It  is  to 
a  high  degree  a  close  corporation . 

But  to  observe,  on  the  other  hand,  the  positive 
side  of  its  power:  The  pettiest  claim  on  the  pri- 
vate calendar  might  find,  through  its  favor,  prece- 
dence over  the  greatest  appropriation  bill ;  with  its 
aid  a  despised  Committee  on  Expenditures  could 
push  aside  the  venerable  Ways  and  Means.  "It 
can  prepare  a  bill  in  the  Speaker's  room,"  declares 
a  Representative,  "and  say  to  the  committee 
which  would  ordinarily  have  charge  of  the  sub- 
ject :  '  Take  this  or  nothing.' '  Among  the  more 
powerful  committees  of  co-ordinate  privilege,  that 
one  prevails  which  gets  the  alliance  of  the  Rules. 
While  the  ability  of  the  other  committees  to  effect 
changes  in  the  Rules  is  small,  its  opportunities  for 
stripping  away  their  powers  and  otherwise  weak- 
ening them  is  large,  as  for  example  by  increasing 
their  sizes  until  they  are  unwieldy.  If  the  minor- 
ity begins  old-time  filibustering  tactics  against  a 
bill,  three  men  of  the  Rules  may  at  once  write 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  203 

out  a  brief  Resolution  which  claims  the  floor  even 
against  a  conference  report  or  the  reading  of  the 
journal,  which  demands  a  vote  without  one  delay- 
ing word  or  motion,  winch  fixes  for  the  opposed 
measure  a  time  of  debate,  however  brief,  and  an 
opportunity  of  amendment,  however  limited,  be- 
fore it  is  put  upon  its  final  passage.  It  is  not, 
therefore,  a  matter  of  surprise  that  the  House,  in 
the  earlier  days  of  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress, 
passed  two  important  measures,  the  tariff  bill  and 
the  bond  bill,  with  a  rapidity  unparalleled,  prob- 
ably, in  all  its  previous  history. 

In  a  word,  the  Representatives  confer  upon  the 
Rules  in  large  measure  that  power  over  the  laws 
of  procedure  which  has  been  so  freely  and  fully 
vested  in  them  in  the  first  instance  by  the  people. 
Is  this  power  of  a  few  men  detrimental  or  danger- 
ous? Are  there  no  checks  for  the  Committee  on 
Rules?  With  the  disappearing  ability  of  the 
minority  to  hinder  even  the  speediest  action,  with 
the  history  of  the  House  one  steady  process  of 
diminishing  the  minority's  ancient  privileges,  is 
there  no  limit  to  which  the  majority  may  not  go 
in  foolish,  extravagant,  destructive  legislation? 
Answers  to  such  questions  may  be  suggested  by 
the  withdrawal,  Aug.  29,  1893,  by  the  Rules,  of  a 
proposition  which  it  had  presented  for  making 
one  hundred  members  a  quorum  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  or  by  those  keynote  words  uttered 


204  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

in  December,  1895,  by  the  majority's  caucus  nom- 
inee for  Speaker :  "  History  may  accord  us  praise 
in  this  Congress  for  what  we  do  not  do ;  there  are 
times  when  rest  is  as  health-giving  as  exercise ; 
crude  and  hasty  legislation  is  above  all  things  to 
be  shunned."  Why  did  the  Democratic  Rules 
withdraw  the  proposition  which  it  had  presented  ? 
Why  did  the  Republican  leader  declare  that  the 
committee  of  which  he  was  to  be  chief  would 
pursue  this  particular  policy? 

The  Committee  on  Rules  consists  of  five  wise 
and  experienced  leaders.  They  represent  in  the 
House  a  solution  of  vexed  problems  similar  to  that 
which  some  of  our  great  cities  have  been  adopt- 
ing ;  that  is,  the  concentration  of  power  in  a  few 
hands  so  that  clear  responsibility  may  be  fixed, 
and  energetic,  able  administration  secured.  They 
govern  best  by  governing  least,  allowing  the  si- 
lently working  moral  influence  of  their  power  to 
steadily  uphold  their  authority.  This  small  co- 
terie might  press  upon  the  House,  before  all  other 
measures,  a  proposal  to  experiment  in  American 
legislation  for  a  week  under  the  rules  of  proce- 
dure of  the  British  or  the  Japanese  Parliament; 
but  there  are  many  things  which  men  of  plain  com- 
mon-sense refrain  from  doing.  Their  skill  as  par- 
liamentarians versed  in  the  peculiar  environment, 
traditions,  character,  customs,  rules  of  the  House, 
cannot  be  matched  within  or  without  Congress. 


EQUALITY  AND   LEADERSHIP.  205 

They  know  how  to  gauge  accurately  and  finely  the 
sentiments  of  the  body  which  they  lead,  whether 
on  subjects  political  or  non-political,  so  as  to  avoid 
a  vote  which  shows  want  of  confidence.  Rarely, 
if  ever,  do  they  make  the  slip  of  even  introducing 
a  special  order  which  will  fail  of  success.  They 
have  come  through  long  personal  acquaintance 
to  that  frame  of  political  mind  wherein,  though 
of  different  parties,  they  will  much  more  readily 
and  frequently  cooperate  than  will  any  five  Repre- 
sentatives of  opposing  faiths  whose  careers  are  just 
beginning.  Hence,  they  often  stand  shoulder  to 
shoulder  in  preserving  peace  where  discord  would 
otherwise  run  rampant  between  the  two  large 
heterogeneous  crowds  of  followers  upon  the  floor. 
But  where  word  is  given  for  battle  upon  planks  of 
party  creed,  the  committee  of  five  dwindles  to  a 
triumvirate  which  guides  and  voices  the  will  of 
the  majority ;  which  works  for  the  maintenance  of 
party  unity;  which  conciliates  rebels  of  its  own 
side  of  the  House  when  it  cannot  overawe  them, 
and,  if  overruled  on  some  rare  occasion,  submits 
with  good  grace  that  brings  the  Speaker  out  of  his 
sanctuary  to  walk  between  the  tellers  and  be 
counted  as  when  he  was  an  ordinary  Representa- 
tive a  score  of  years  ago ;  which  arbitrates  among 
great  committees  of  equal  privilege,  arranging  the 
programme  for  consideration  of  their  bills  by  the 
House ;   finally,  which  brings  together  the  chiefs 


206  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

in  daily  council  to  hold  its  touch  with  the  major- 
ity within  the  Congressional  Hall  and  to  turn  the 
search-lights  out  beyond  the  Capitol  over  the  drift- 
ing currents  of  public  opinion.  Despotic  power 
cannot  build  itself  upon  a  two  years'  tenure.  At 
the  polls,  with  advancing  civic  spirit,  the  people 
have  been  rebuking  their  Representatives  more 
and  more  sharply  for  extravagance  and  incompe- 
tence. By  showers  of  adverse  ballots  they  have 
overwhelmed  alternately  both  the  great  political 
parties.  As  a  consequence,  each  party,  when  in 
power,  is  beginning  to  exercise  its  wits  to  escape 
further  chastisement  by  devising  effective  modes 
of  self-control  against  repetition  of  its  offenses. 
This  better  legislative  machinery  has  come  in  the 
rise  of  the  Committee  on  Rules  and  of  the  infor- 
mal steering  committee  of  which  it  is  the  nucleus. 
Here  is  the  new  central  instrument  for  equitable 
and  economical  distribution  of  the  annual  revenue 
among  the  great  governmental  interests,  succeed- 
ing to  the  supremacy  of  the  Committee  on  Appro- 
priations, and  yet  not  tempted  as  was  it  to  increase 
its  jurisdiction  by  the  reprehensible  methods  which 
led  to  the  revolution  of  1880.  Here  is  a  revival 
and  perpetuation  of  that  unity  of  lawmaking  which 
characterized  those  first  years  when  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of  the  Union  held  the 
primacy  for  the  formulation  of  laws.  A  better 
century  has  begun,  wherein  the  American  House  of 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  207 

Representatives  will  express  more  readily  and  truly 
the  more  easily  known  will  of  the  people. 

Having  viewed  from  various  points  and  in  vari- 
ous lights  this  century-old  House  of  Representa- 
tives, it  is  well  to  look  back  over  the  study  for 
the  leading  facts  and  forces  that  have  evolved  a 
legislative  system.  They  are  found  first  of  all  in 
the  Constitution.  The  Speaker  is  mighty  because 
his  name  is  ineradicably  written  there.  Popular 
equality  is  there  implied,  Representative  with  Rep- 
resentative, and  has  subsisted  without  fail  in  the 
process  of  voting,  making  a  Congressman  a  Con- 
gressman "for  a'  that,"  whether  he  has  won  his 
election  by  the  qualities  of  a  David  Crockett  or  of 
a  Daniel  Webster.  The  life  of  each  House  is  a 
brief  two  years,  in  contrast  with  the  longer  possi- 
ble life  of  a  popular  body  in  the  mother  Parliament 
and  in  other  great  national  legislatures,  as  well 
as  with  the  mandate  of  our  Federal  Senate  or  Ex- 
ecutive. The  Constitution  expressly  prescribes 
particular  duties  for  Congress,  and  lays  upon  the 
lower  chamber  special  responsibilities  for  finances. 
Lastly,  no  lawmaking  body  in  the  world,  perhaps, 
lias  such  a  modicum  of  judicial  and  executive 
functions. 

But  behind  the  Constitution  has  been  the  na- 
tional life,  or,  as  the  publicist  would  say,  the  State, 
—  that  power  which  created  it  in  the  first  instance, 
and  has  been  slowly  transforming  it  with  chan- 


208  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ging  conditions  of  advancing  times.  The  nation's 
growth,  unparalleled  for  population,  wealth,  terri- 
tory, refinement,  —  a  growth  that  leaped  forward 
with  hundred-fold  speed  and  strength  when  sla- 
very's fetters  fell  away,  has  been  faithfully  mir- 
rored in  every  phase  within  its  Representative  Hall. 
Inventive  genius,  continually  adding  other  and 
better  means  of  communication,  has  been  increas- 
ing the  touch  of  government  with  the  governed, 
of  elector  with  the  elected.  There  has  been  the 
special  American  environment  with  the  foremost 
instance  of  colonization  in  human  history,  —  the 
planting  of  civilization  from  its  most  advanced 
continent  upon  the  most  inviting  continental  wil- 
derness. 

These  blending  causes  have  resulted,  for  the 
House  of  Representatives,  in  a  distinctly  American 
law  and  practice  for  legislation.  With  reference 
to  the  dear  old  assembly  of  England,  our  Congres- 
sional procedure  has  become  more  and  more  un- 
parliamentary. The  humble  Speaker  coining  with 
hat  in  hand  to  the  throne  —  he  is  not  here  in  this 
powerful  chief  who  dreams  of  the  White  House. 
That  glory  of  unlimited  oratory  with  which  Burke 
and  Fox  and  Pitt  filled  the  midnight  hours  has 
paled  before  the  time-weighing  glory  of  the  new 
previous  question  and  the  hour  and  the  minute 
rule.  The  simpler  ancient  methods  of  preparing 
the  budget  have   been  cast  aside  for  machinery 


EQUALITY  AND  LEADERSHIP.  209 

more  improved  and  more  adequate.  Conditions 
of  old  times  in  legislation  required  a  large  field  of 
minority,  as  compared  with  majority,  rights;  the 
movement  everywhere,  and  markedly  under  the 
conditions  of  the  American  House  of  Representa- 
tives, has  —  seemingly  :^ove  than  really  —  had  to 
be  in  favor  of  t^e  latter  at  the  expense  of  the 
former.  The  pre^.  aration  of  laws  has  moved  into 
the  committee  hand^  of  the  few  who  are  ablest  and 
most  experienced,  while  almost  all  the  process  of 
testing  by  the  entiie  body  has  narrowed  to  the 
final  vote.  The  system  is  built  upon  the  biennial 
tenure.  The  standing  committees  are  an  effort 
after  permanence  and  power.  They  have  reacted 
wonderfully  to  the  enlargement  of  the  govern- 
mental sphere ;  and  public  opinion  is  demanding 
and  obtaining,  and  will  cutain,  more  thorough  con- 
trol over  their  proceedings.  Such  is  the  story  of 
a  legislative  chamber  which  has  faced  conditions 
so  radically  different  from  those  of  other  lawmak- 
ing assemblies.  As  did  Charles  Kingsley  generally 
of  institutional  history,  so  of  any  particular  period 
in  this  development  may  oar  people  affirm:  Wis- 
dom is  justified  of  her  children.  The  future  will 
bring  changes,  like  those  that  have  been  traced, 
distinctively  American. 


Here  are  two  Houses,  each  complete  in  itself;  acting  sepa- 
rately, each  as  a  House ;  they  concur  in  erecting  a  committee,  in 
delegating  an  agency  to  certain  members  of  each  House.  That 
does  not  fuse  or  amalgamate  thesp  two  Houses  or  the  members  of 
the  two  at  all ;  but  each  stands  separate,  isolated,  intact  as  it  was 
before. 

.vJbCOii  O'JKKLING. 


Shall  the  President  of  the  United  States  tell  us  what  we  shall 
refer  to  a  select  committee  and  what  tp  a  standing  committee  of 
this  House?  Why,  sir,  we  can  refer  to  a  select  committee,  or  to  a 
standing  committee,  or  to  a  single  member  if  we  choose,  and  the 
President  of  the  United  States  has  no  right  to  Lake  exception  to 
our  action. 

John  Sherman. 


The  heads  of  the  departments  may  answer  such  a  request  as 
they  please,  provided  they  do  not  withdraw  their  own  time,  and 
that  of  the  officers  under  their  direction,  from  the  public  business 
to  the  injury  thereof.  To  that  •business  I  shall  direct  them  to 
devote  themselves,  in  preference  to  any  illegal  and  unconsti- 
tutional call  for  information,  no  matter  from  what  source  it 
may  come  or  however  anxious  they  may  be  to  meet  it.  For 
myself,  I  shall  repel  all  such  attempts  at  invasion  of  the  prin- 
ciples of  justice,  as  well  as  of  the  Constitution ;  and  I  shall  es- 
teem it  my  sacred  duty  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  to 
resist  them  as  I  would  the  establishment  of  a  Spanish  inquisition. 

J  Andrew  Jackson. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

BONDS     BETWEEN     JUDICIARY,     EXECUTIVE,     AND 
CONGRESS. 

To  understand  the  peculiar  relations,  one  to 
another,  of  the  Judiciary,  Executive,  Senate,  and 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  United  States, 
demands  an  exhaustive  knowledge  and  an  uner- 
ring estimate  for  successive  periods  of  the  play  in 
the  government  of  centrifugal  against  co-operative 
forces.  The  framework  for  these  relations  is  in  the 
Constitution,  with  its  different  lengths  of  tenure 
and  different  bases  of  representation  for  the  sev- 
eral branches.  Direction  and  extent  of  activity  at 
any  given  time  are  dependent  upon  the  personali- 
ties of  the  men  in  office,  and  upon  the  state  of  the 
highly-wrought  political  party  system.  With  or 
without  foresight  for  the  greatly  increasing  power 
of  party  spirit  which  has  attended  the  history  of  the 
United  States,  the  Constitution-makers  laid  down 
a  set  of  conditions  which  afford  wide  variety  in 
the  complexion  of  the  government.  There  may  be 
at  the  same  time  a  Republican  House,  a  Populist 
Senate,  and  a  Democratic  President,  or  one  party 

211 


212  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

may  be  supreme  in  all  three.  Between  these  ex- 
tremes, combination  is  possible  of  House  and  Sen- 
ate against  President,  of  House  and  President 
against  Senate,  of  President  and  Senate  against 
House.  Any  system  of  inter-relations  able  to  en- 
dure, no  matter  which  of  the  five  cases  may  prevail, 
must,  indeed,  rest  upon  broad  and  mobile  principles. 
Were  these  three  parties  to  the  enactment  of  the 
laws  to  come  into  and  go  out  of  office  at  the  same 
time  and  under  the  uniform  rule  of  popular  major- 
ity, a  century  of  development  would  present  elab- 
orated methods  of  co-operation  in  marked  contrast 
with  the  meager  progress  which  a  century  under 
existing  conditions  has  shown.  But  so  long  as 
the  Constitution,  whatever  its  offsetting  merits  and 
defects,  remains  as  it  is,  so  long,  doubtless,  must 
the  critics  sigh  because  of  the  absence  of  "  real  re- 
sponsibility for  the  legislation  of  the  session  "  and 
because  of  "  the  unorganized  relations  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive with  Congress."  1 

In  considering  the  committees  as  bonds  for  such 
relations  as  have  been  formed  between  the  House 
and  the  other  branches,  the  connection  with  the  Ju- 
diciary may  be  first  briefly  disposed  of.     Coordi- 

1  The  Washington  Post,  March  17,  1897,  asserts  that  Secretary 
Olney's  appearance  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  would  have  made 
"a  ten  days'  talk,"  and  contrasts  a  pleasant  visit  of  Secretary 
Sherman  to  his  recent  associates.  A  debate  upon  the  seating  of 
Cabinet  Officers  in  Congress  occurred  in  the  Senate  in  1881.  Cf. 
46: 3,  Senate  Reports,  Vol.  I.,  No.  837, 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     213 

nately  with  the  Senate,  the  House  has  had  the  task 
of  building  an  entire  system  of  national  courts. 
In  its  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  select  commit- 
tees, foundations  of  these  were  laid.  The  Com- 
mittee on  Judiciary  was  created  on  motion  of  John 
G.  Jackson  as  the  thirteenth  standing  committee, 
June  3,  1813,  almost  a  quarter  of  a  century  after 
the  beginning  of  the  government.  It  has  held  its 
way  steadily  among  the  other  committees  as  always 
a  favorite.  The  nature  of  the  subjects  with  which 
it  has  been  charged  has  constantly  drawn  to  it  the 
best  legal  talent  in  a  body  so  largely  composed  of 
lawyers  as  is  the  House,  has  given  to  its  member- 
ship a  long  list  of  the  brightest  names  in  the  annals 
of  American  statesmanship.  Owing  also  to  the 
non-partisan  character  of  its  duties,  it  has  held 
among  its  fellows,  whether  viewed  in  the  commit- 
tee room  or  upon  the  floor,  the  palm  for  examples 
of  united  action  by  great  parties  for  the  framing  of 
laws.  Its  work  goes  steadily  on  with  little  regard 
to  reverses  of  party  supremacy  in  the  House,  so 
that  not  infrequently  the  chairman  from  one  party 
is  seen  co-operating,  as  a  minority  member  of  the 
Judiciary,  with  his  successor  of  the  other  party  in 
the  passage  of  a  measure  which  he  has  himself 
fathered  at  the  preceding  Congress.  Its  field  is 
large,  including  all  questions  pertaining  to  the  cre- 
ation of  courts,  their  location,  jurisdiction,  methods 
of  procedure,  judges,  attorneys,  marshals,  clerks, 


214  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

prisons,  etc. ;  important  Constitutional  questions, 
as  amendments,  impeachments,  habeas  corpus,  pi- 
racy, counterfeiting ;  questions  of  political  science 
generally,  as  woman's  suffrage  and  citizenship ;  and 
many  subjects  presumably  committed  to  it  solely 
because  of  the  high  ability  of  its  membership  as 
compared  with  the  committees  that  might  naturally 
be  supposed  to  have  charge  of  them.  To  the  sec- 
ond session  of  the  Fifty-third  Congress  it  presented 
more  than  eighty  reports.  Considering  the  char- 
acter of  its  work,  and  the  amount  of  time  and  at- 
tention demanded  of  the  House,  it  may  be  said  to 
be  equaled  by  few  and  excelled  by  none  of  the 
other  House  committees. 

Much  more  complex  are  the  relations  between 
House,  Executive,  and  Senate,  as  compared  with 
those  between  House  and  Judiciary.  Committees 
have  the  duty,  not  of  enacting,  but  of  formulating 
laws.  The  President  has  the  veto  power,  but 
what  of  his  influence  in  the  committee  room  where 
laws  have  their  origin?  What  of  the  power  of 
the  committee  over  the  Administration  ? 

Americans  of  later  times  find  as  much  diffi- 
culty as  did  William  Maclay  in  keeping  straight 
"  the  profane  muscles  of  the  face  "  over  those  per- 
plexities as  to  the  ceremonial  of  communication 
among  the  several  branches  which  distressed  the 
punctilious  first  Vice-President,  and  gave  oppor- 
tunity to  the  shrewdness  of  the  first  Secretary  of 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGEE SS.     215 

I 

the  Treasury.1  But  under  the  forms  were  deep 
and  serious  problems  to  be  solved.  The  First  Con- 
gress was  the  first  national  legislature  of  America 
that  was  bicameral.  For  precedents  it  had  to  look 
to  State  and  colonial  governments  of  two  chambers 
and  a  governor,  or  to  the  British  Parliament  and 
King.  Yet  it  met  under  a  distribution  of  the  pow- 
ers of  government  markedly  different  from  any  of 
these.  The  task  here  is  to  set  forth  such  incidents 
as  seem  worthy  of  notice  in  the  use  of  committees 
for  intercourse  and  cooperation  between  the  House, 
the  Administration,  and  the  Senate.  Elsewhere 
the  imitation  of  English  procedure  in  the  joint 
ceremonies  of  Governor,  Council,  and  Burgesses 
at  Virginia's  colonial  capital  has  been  noticed. 
At  New  York,  in  1789,  the  Anglican  party  im- 
pressed these  forms  to  a  very  lasting  degree  upon 
the  new  government.  The  addresses  and  mes- 
sages of  the  Presidents  at  the  opening  of  the  Con- 
gressional sessions  are  especially  in  point.  After 
Washington  or  his  successor,  Adams,  had  come  in 
state  to  deliver  the  address  to  Congress,  and  had 
left  copies  in  the  hands  of  the  Vice-President  and 
Speaker,  the  Representatives  retired  to  their  own 
chamber,  where  the  address  was  taken  up,  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  generally 
for  the  next  day.  By  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  it  was  referred,  for  the  preparation  of  a 

i  Journal  of  William  Maclay,  3,  262,  263. 


216  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

counter-address,  to  a  select  committee  composed  at 
first  of  three,  and  later  of  five,  members.  The 
House,  when  it  had  received  the  report  of  this 
select  committee,  referred  it  for  discussion  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  where,  on  occasions, 
violent  party  debates  were  lengthened  out  for 
many  days.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole,  hav- 
ing finally  amended  the  document  to  the  satisfac- 
tion of  the  majority,  the  House  would  adopt  it 
sometimes  after  considerable  further  debate.  Then 
a  committee,  usually  the  one  which  had  prepared 
the  counter-address,  waited  upon  the  President  to 
know  when  he  would  receive  it ;  and,  at  the  time 
which  he  deigned  to  name,  the  Representatives  in 
a  body,  with  the  exception  of  some  rather  unman- 
ageable Republicans,  proceeded  to  his  house  to 
deliver,  through  their  Speaker,  the  sentiments 
decided  upon,  and  to  receive  a  short  speech  in 
return.  When  they  had  safely  gotten  back  to 
their  own  apartments,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
again  took  up  the  President's  address,  and  some 
member  introduced  a  number  of  resolutions  based 
upon  its  suggestions,  which  were  separately  re- 
ferred, often  after  long  and  able  debates,  to  various 
select  committees. 

These  processions  of  Executive  to  Legislature 
and  of  Legislature  to  Executive,  instead  of  their 
intended  resemblance  to  the  usually  stately  British 
precedents,  came,  in  their  attendant  rancors  and 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,  AND  CONGRESS.     217 

disorders,  at  times  dangerously  near  to  the  like- 
ness of  those  undignified  registrations  of  edicts 
which  did  so  much,  in  the  Seventeenth  Centuiy, 
to  bring  the  ruling  powers  of  France  into  the  con- 
tempt of  the  French  nation.1  One  occasion  of  the 
preparation  of  a  counter-address  to  Washington, 
that  at  the  beginning  of  the  Third  Congress,  is 
worthy  of  notice  as  showing  that  there  was  thus 
early  a  party  division  in  committees,  with  sharp 
tactics,  and  that  such  an  able  politician  as  James 
Madison  knew  well  how  to  present  a  minority  re- 
port. The  Whisky  Rebellion  had  occurred  dur- 
ing the  summer  recess.  Also  Mr.  Jay  had  been 
sent  with  secret  instructions  for  a  final  attempt  to 
make  terms  with  England.  Washington,  in  his 
address,  noticed  these  two  important  events  at 
some  length.  The  select  committee  to  prepare  the 
answer  was  composed  of  two  Federalists,  Sedgwick 
and  Scott,  and  Madison,  a  Republican.  The  two 
Federalists,  overruling  the  Republican,  decided 
that  the  Committee  should  be  partly  silent,  and 
partly  approve  the  President's  attitude  on  these 

1  It  will  be  remembered  how  the  British  House  of  Commons 
eluded  the  Stuarts  by  inventing  its  Grand  Committees;  oddly 
enough  the  United  States  Senate  boldly  employed  the  same  de- 
vice in  the  very  face  of  our  first  President.  Maclay  describes 
with  a  relish  the  stately  visit  of  Washington,  to  the  upper  house, 
and  his  sudden  loss  of  temper  when  the  business  which  he  had 
laid  before  the  Senators,  instead  of  being  immediately  considered 
in  his  presence,  was  whisked  away  by  a  successful  motion  into  a 
committee  room.    Maclay's  Journal,  122,  128-132. 


218  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

two  most  important  points.  But  Madison's  turn 
came  when  the  paper  had  been  submitted  to  the 
whole  House,  where  he  was  not  mistaken  in  count- 
ing upon  a  stanch  support.  He  there  sprang  an 
amendment  which  arrayed  the  two  parties  sharply 
as  to  foreign  affairs  upon  a  word-quibble  over  the 
use  of  "a"  or  "your."  Fitzsimons  opposed  him 
with  an  amendment  which  expressly  approved 
Washington's  censure  of  what  he  styled  "self- 
created  societies,"  meaning  the  new  political  clubs 
which  were  springing  up  throughout  the  country. 
Members  tried  to  avoid  these  issues  by  urging  to 
recommit  to  the  select  committee,  and  by  moving 
that  the  committee  rise.  Madison,  having  accom- 
plished what  was,  perhaps,  his  object,  —  the  prov- 
ocation of  a  debate  which  should  go  before  the 
country,  —  withdrew  his  amendment.  Fitzsimons's 
amendment,  after  having  been  amended  and  coun- 
ter-amended upon  almost  tie  votes  by  striking  out 
the  phrase  "  self-created  societies  "  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  and  reinserting  it  in  the  House, 
and  then  localizing  the  societies  in  "  Western 
Pennsylvania  and  parts  adjacent,"  was  finally  lost. 
Followed  by  all  later  Presidents,  Jefferson  had 
the  good  sense  to  avoid  this  too  close  contact  be- 
tween Congress  and  Executive  by  sending  in  a 
written  Message,  and  hinting  that  an  answer,  imme- 
diate and  in  person,  was  not  expected.1    The  annual 

1  See  his  letter  to  the  Senate,  C.  A.,  Dec.  8,  1801. 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     219 

discussions  over  reference  of  the  Message  to  select 
and  standing  committees  have  continued  until 
the  present  time.  Sometimes  an  opening  Message 
has  created  much  excitement  and  parliamentary 
fencing ;  sometimes  it  has  been  quietly  received 
and  referred  with  trivial  debate.1  This  sugges- 
tive power  of  the  Presidents  has  varied  with  their 
larger  or  smaller  influence  in  the  various  periods 
of  our  history;  but  in  the  long  run  it  has  been 
very  considerable.  If  the  lists  of  select  committees 
raised  upon  the  Messages  during  the  first  forty 
years  be  scanned,  they  reveal  an  important  direc- 
tive influence  in  the  expansion  of  the  standing 
committee  system.  Americans  of  to-day  cannot 
appreciate  the  part  played  before  the  development 
of  newspapers  and  magazines  by  Presidential  com- 
munications to  Congress.  The  wires  now  flash 
them  throughout  the  land ;  they  appear  in  the 
morning  papers  as  but  part  of  extensive  gleanings 
of  news  from  all  quarters  of  the  earth ;  periodicals 
comment  upon  them  at  but  little  if  any  greater 
length  than  upon  many  other  current  topics ;  but  in 
the  good  old  times  relays  of  fast  horses,  specially 
organized,  carried  them  north  and  south  from  city 
to  city,  and  all  other  matter  was  but  narrow  bor- 
der to  their  compact  columns  in  the  modest-sized 
newspapers,  which  finally  penetrated  to  the  remote 
country  stores  and  firesides,  where  they  served  as 

i  C.  R.,  Dec.  24,  1895. 


220  CONGHESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

intellectual  and  civic  food  for  many  a  day.  Of 
course,  as  the  number  of  standing  committees  in- 
creased, fewer  select  committees  needed  to  be  raised 
upon  the  Message,  and  the  process  became  more  a 
matter  of  routine.  There  was  a  breaking  away 
from  this  Presidential  initiative  in  1818,  when 
John  W.  Taylor  introduced,  in  addition  to  the  ten 
resolutions  on  the  different  parts  of  the  Message, 
four  others  for  select  committees  on  topics  not 
touched  upon  by  the  President.  "  Mr.  Pitkin,  of 
Connecticut,  objected  to  acting  on  these  subjects, 
as  proposed,  on  the  ground  that  they  did  not  flow 
from  the  Message ;  and  that  it  had  been  usual 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the  State  of 
the  Union,  on  the  President's  Message,  not  to  in- 
troduce any  topic  foreign  to  the  Message."  By 
a  vote  of  sixty-one  to  fifty  they  were  laid  upon 
the  table,  but  Mr.  Taylor  immediately  afterwards 
moved  them  with  success  in  the  House.1  There  was 
a  still  wider  departure  towards  independence  at  the 
opening  of  the  session  in  1821.2  Action  upon  ref- 
erence of  the  Message  towards  the  close  of  Andrew 
Jackson's  "  reign  "  seemed  a  return  in  point  of  con- 
sumption of  time  and  wrangling  to  the  distempered 
disputes  of  John  Adams's  Administration .  At  the 
beginning  of  the  Civil  War  the  House,  and  not  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  is  seen  dissecting  the 
Message  without  debate ;  and  in  1863  the  Commit- 

1  C.  A.,  Nov.  18, 1818.  2  C.  A.,  Dec.  6-10,  1821. 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     221 

tee  on  Ways  and  Means  has  in  some  way  secured 
the  prerogative.  Since  then  the  Ways  and  Means 
has  distributed  the  subjects,  with  some  struggle  on 
the  part  of  other  committees  to  reduce  the  lion's 
share  which  it  is  prone  to  appropriate  to  itself,  and 
to  take  away  jurisdiction  from  each  other.  Samuel 
S.  Cox  declared  the  process  to  be  a  sham  and  a 
nonentity.1  What  a  contrast  with  scenes  of  the 
long  gone  by  in  early  American  Congresses  on  the 
same  occasion  and  in  ancient  British  Parliaments 
—  the  aged  ex-Speaker  Grow,  returned  by  the  con- 
servative Keystone  State,  not  entirely  through  a 
whim  sentimental,  rising  in  1895  among  the  Repre- 
sentatives of  a  new  generation  to  move  that  the 
House  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
on  the  State  of  the  Union  on  the  President's  Mes- 
sage, and  proceeding  therein,  without  reply  from 
Democrat  or  second  from  Republican,  to  deliver  a 
solitary  speech  upon  the  Tariff ! 

But  meanwhile  the  Executive  influence  has  been 
felt  in  various  ways  more  informal.  During  Wash- 
ington's Presidency  members  of  his  cabinet,  nota- 
bly Hamilton  as  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  had  a 
marked  initiative  in  the  preparation  of  bills  of 
which  the  House  soon  became  jealous.  March  11, 
1794,  Madison  wrote  to  Jefferson:  "I  forgot  to 
mention  in  my  last  that  the  question  whether  the 
Ways  and  Means  should  be  referred  to  the  Secre- 

i  C.  R.,  Dec.  10,  1877. 


222  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tary  of  the  Treasury,  as  heretofore,  or  to  a  com- 
mittee, lately  came  on,  and  decided  the  sense  of  the 
House  to  be  regenerated  on  that  point."  l  Of 
his  own  action  of  Dec.  21,  1795,  Albert  Gallatin 
wrote :  "  My  first  step  was  to  have  a  standing 
committee  of  Ways  and  Means  appointed.  That 
this  should  not  have  been  sooner  done  proves  the 
existing  bias  in  favor  of  increasing  as  far  as  pos- 
sible the  power  of  the  Executive  branch."  2  Feb. 
2,  1797,  Speaker  Dayton  ruled  out  of  order  a  mo- 
tion of  Mr.  Coit  that  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury be  directed  to  bring  in  a  bill  upon  imposts  and 
tonnage.  While  the  direct  connection  of  the  Ex- 
ecutive with  the  House,  and  every  shadow  of  claim 
to  the  initiation  of  laws,  was  thus  early  cut  off,  it 
has  always  subsisted  to  a  greater  or  lesser  degree 
in  a  voluntary  way  with  the  committees  or  with  in- 
dividuals as  intermediaries.  John  Quincy  Adams, 
as  Monroe's  Secretary  of  State,  mentions  several 
instances  where  members  of  Congress  came  to  him 
to  submit  drafts  of  bills  that  he  might  suggest 
modifications  or  obtain  for  them  the  opinion  of 
the  President.3  Certain  newspaper  publications 
of  1837  throw  interesting  light  upon  the  drafting 
of  bills  in  the  times  of  Jackson  and  Van  Buren. 
The  Atlas  and  other  Boston  papers  reported  Rich- 
ard Fletcher,  a  member  of  the  House  Ways  and 

1  Madison's  Works,  II.  9.       2  Adams's  Life  of  Gallatin,  157, 172. 
»  Memoirs,  IV.,  503. 


\. 


JUDICIAKY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     223 

Means,  as  declaring  in  a  speech  at  Faneuil  Hall 
during  the  summer  recess :  "  The  Chairman  of 
the  committee  steps  up  to  the  White  House,  and 
there  receives  from  the  President  or  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury  such  bills  as  they  wish  to  have 
passed  by  the  House.  The  chairman  puts  the  bills 
in  his  pocket ;  takes  them  to  the  committee  with- 
out any  examination ;  the  majority  of  the  commit- 
tee approve  them ;  the  minority  can  do  nothing ; 
the  bills  are  presented  to  the  House,  and  received 
as  the  doings  of  the  committee."  Upon  the  re- 
assembling of  Congress,  Chairman  Churchill  C. 
Cambreleng  of  the  Ways  and  Means  published  in 
the  Washington  Globe  a  reply  to  this  and  other 
charges  of  the  Boston  speech.  "The  usage  from 
the  commencement  of  the  government,"  said  he, 
"  has  been  for  the  committee,  through  its  chairman, 
to  consult  the  head  of  the  Department  in  regard 
to  such  measures  as  he  may  recommend  for  the 
consideration  of  Congress ;  for  the  Secretary  to 
attend  on,  and  confer  with  the  committee,  if  in- 
vited, and  to  furnish  drafts  of  bills  embracing  his 
own  propositions,  when  requested  to  do  so."  1  He 
denied  however  the  slavish  acceptance  of  Exec- 
utive measures  "word  for  word,  letter  for  letter, 
comma  for  comma ;  "  cited  in  proof  the  history  of 
several  bills ;   and  presented  in  parallel  columns 

i  Cf.  Hildreth,  IV.  383-4  ;  C.  A.,  Nov.  13, 14, 1792,  for  an  early 
case  of  Secretaries  before  a  committee. 


224  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

the  Secretary's  draft  of  one  of  them,  with  its  mod- 
ified, form  as  reported  from  the  Ways  and  Means.1 
Recent  examples  of  this  practice  are  to  be  had 
in  the  presentation  to  the  Ways  and  Means  of 
suggested  amendments  to  the  Administrative  Cus- 
toms Act  by  Charles  S.  Hamlin,  Assistant-Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury,  and  in  the  comments  on 
the  Wilbur  Filled-Cheese  Bill  sent  in  to  the  same 
committee  by  Henry  E.  Alford,  Chief  of  the 
Dairy  Division  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture.2 
There  are  many  avenues  leading  from  the  Depart- 
ments to  the  Capitol ;  what  cannot  find  an  en- 
trance through  the  House  comes  in  by  way  of  the 
Senate  ;  "  It  is  a  favorite  scheme,"  says  Chairman 
Cannon,  "  for  Executive  officers,  when  they  can- 
not get  appropriations  recommended  under  the  ju- 
risdiction of  one  committee,  to  shift  around,  and 
submit  estimates  so  that  they  will  come  in  under 
another  committee." 

Where  a  party  has  been  in  possession  of  the 
Presidency  and  the  House  at  the  same  time,  the  in- 
fluence of  the  Executive  in  the  choice  of  the 
Speaker,  and  consequently  in  the  composition  of 
the  committees  upon  questions  which  divide  the 
party  into  two  wings,  has  often  been  direct  and 
powerful.      The  contest  of  James  K.   Polk   and 

i  Dec.  13,  1837. 

2  Cf.  Hearings  on  these  subjects  before  the  Ways  and  Means, 
Washington,  January  and  February  1896. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     225 

John  Bell  for  the  Speakership  in  1835  is  a  case  in 
evidence.1  Earlier,  John  Quincy  Adams  found  his 
administration  handicapped  in  its  beginning  by  the 
organization  of  all  the  committees  of  Congress  in 
favor  of  his  beaten  rival,  Andrew  Jackson.2  "I 
nit  her  think  that  the  House  will  be  organized  by 
the  election  of  a  Speaker  who  will  consult  the 
President  and  Cabinet  in  the  appointment  of  the 
committees,"  says  a  correspondent  of  the  New  York 
Herald  in  1853.  Stephen  A.  Douglas,  according 
to  Henry  Wilson,  was  put  down  from  his  commit- 
tee chairmanship  in  the  Senate  at  the  bidding  of 
Buchanan's  administration.8  One  committee  of 
the  House  stands  on  a  peculiar  footing  as  regards 
relations  with  the  Executive  ;  namely,  the  Foreign 
Affaire.  The  trickery  of  the  chairman  of  the 
Ways  and  Means,  John  Randolph,  in  failing  to 
report  on  Jefferson's  message  with  reference  to 
the  conduct  of  European  belligerents,  and  in  delay- 
ing the  appropriation  bills  so  as  to  prevent  the 
purchase  of  Florida,  and  his  punishment  therefor, 
are  cited  elsewhere.4     Later,  in  1819,  when  this 

i  Schouler,  IV.  221. 

2  Ibid,  III.  417.  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  404;  Editorial  in 
National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  4,  1827.  The  Washington  Post,  Dec. 
22,  23,  1895,  comments  upon  the  capture  of  twenty-five  House 
chairmanships  hy  New  York,  Pennsylvania,  and  Iowa  as  a  prob- 
able plot  against  certain  aspirants  for  the  coming  Republican 
nomination  to  the  Presidency. 

8  Blaine's  "  Twenty  Years  of  Congress,"  II.  504. 

4  Above,  Chapter  IV. 


226  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

same  purchase  was  under  more  successful  negotia- 
tion, the  chairman  of  the  Foreign  Affairs  seems,  to 
have  attended  a  meeting  of  the  Cabinet  and  set 
forth  his  views.1  In  a  debate  on  the  deposing  of 
Edward  Everett  from  the  chairmanship  of  Foreign 
Affairs,  one  speaker  urged  that  the  chairmen  of 
that  committee  especially,  and  of  other  important 
House  committees  generally,  ought  to  be  "men 
who  were  in  confidential  relations  with  the  govern- 
ment ;  "  and  another  speaker,  "  that  every  commit- 
tee of  the  House  was  the  organ  exclusively  of  the 
House,  and  as  such  it  owed  no  duty  elsewhere."2 
Speaker  Bell,  defending  himself  against  the  charge 
of  subserviency  to  Jackson  on  this  occasion,  de- 
clared that  he  had  acted  upon  a  principle  which 
he  had  once  heard  enunciated  by  John  Quincy 
Adams,  to  the  effect  that,  if  ours  is  to  be  a  practi- 
cable government,  the  several  departments  must 
be  regarded  not  only  as  coordinate,  but  also  as  to 
a  due  degree  cooperative.3  The  same  thought  is 
expressed  by  The  Nation  in  commenting  upon  the 
removal,  after  ten  years  of  service,  of  Charles  Sum- 
ner from  the  chairmanship  of  Foreign  Affairs  in  the 
Senate,  because  of  his  opposition  to  General  Grant's 
desire  for  the  purchase  of  San  Domingo.4     The 

1  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs. 

2  C.  A.,  Jan.  11,  1835;  cf.  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  XI.  iii. 
»  Appendix  to  C.  G.,  VIII.  189.      . 

4  The  Nation,  Mar.  16,  1871 ;  Blaine's  "  Twenty  Years  of  Con- 
gress," II.  503;  Works  of  Charles  Sumner,  XIV.  121. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     227 

newspapers  of  June,  1896,  noted  as  to  the  Cuban 
Question,  the  fact  that  President  Cleveland  had 
met  the  Foreign  Affairs  of  the  House,  and  satisfied 
it  concerning  his  attitude  upon  the  recognition  of 
belligerency. 

From  the  standpoint  of  the  House  in  its  asser- 
tion of  a  right  to  examine,  control,  and  prescribe 
the  conduct  of  the  Executive,  the  history  of  com- 
mittee activity  presents  itself  under  five  heads: 
first,  the  general  discussion  of  the  Executive  do- 
ings in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  decision 
by  vote  in  the  House  ;  second,  the  select  com- 
mittees raised  from  time  to  time  to  make  inquiries 
upon  charges  of  misconduct  with  the  ultimate  ob- 
ject of  censure,  impeachment  or  vindication  of  the 
Executive;  third,  certain  standing  committees  of 
expenditures  in  the  departments ;  fourth,  those 
standing  committees  charged  with  the  general  ap- 
propriation bills ;  and  fifth,  the  committees  for 
general  legislation.  Treatment  of  these  heads  fol- 
lows herewith  in  order. 

Examples  of  the  first  class  characterize  the  earli- 
est methods  of  the  House.  Hamilton's  operations 
with  foreign  loans  were  thus  sustained  after  two 
days'  discussion  of  the  Giles  resolutions.1  Presi- 
dent Adams's  delivery  of  Thomas  Nash  on  requi- 
sition of  the  British  minister  received  a  similar 
approval.2    Discussions  in  the  House  resulted  in  neg- 

i  C.  A.,  Feb.  28-Mar.  1,  1793.    *  c.  A.,  Feb.  20-Mar.  10,  1800. 


228  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

atives  to  Josiah  Quincy's  and  Barent  Gardenier's 
resolutions  of  inquiry  into  the  official  conduct  of 
President  Jefferson  and  Secretary  Gallatin.1 

The  first  select  House  committee  of  inquiry  into 
Executive  affairs  was  that  upon  the  defeat  of  Gen- 
eral St.  Clair,  ordered  March  27,  1792.  The  mo- 
tion for  its  raising  was  substituted  for  a  resolution 
requesting  the  President  to  conduct  an  investiga- 
tion. The  duty  of  the  House  to  guard  all  expen- 
ditures of  the  public  money,  and  its  Constitutional 
right  of  impeachment,  were  cited  as  justifying  this 
procedure.2  Upon  this  committee  no  member  of 
the  House  who  had  voted  against  the  inquiry  was 
named.  Before  it,  upon  a  recommitment  for  that 
special  purpose,  came  the  Secretaries  of  War  and 
Treasury  —  the  first  appearance  of  cabinet  officers 
before  a  House  committee.  After  the  above-men- 
tioned approval  of  Hamilton's  conduct  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  he  sought  and  received  further 
vindication  by  the  investigations  of  a  select  com- 
mittee. His  successor,  Wolcott,  followed  his  ex- 
ample, and  later  Secretaries  Calhoun  and  Webster. 
President  Monroe  asked  an  examination  of  his  ac- 
counts as  a  public  officer.3  While  professing  them- 
selves ready  to  facilitate  any  inquiry  based  upon 

i  C.  A.,  Jan.  25,  1809,  Feb.  19,  1810. 

2  On  the  right  to  demand  papers  upon  the  Executive  files, 
with  an  exhaustive  chronicle  of  precedents  since  1789,  cf .  52 : 2, 
Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.  pp.  232-272. 

8  C.  A.,  Jan.  11, 1825. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     229 

specific  charges,  Andrew  Jackson  and  his  cabinet 
officers  very  pointedly  refused  to  comply  with  the 
large    and  general   demands   of   an  investigating 
committee  raised  on  the  motion  of  Henry  A.  Wise.1 
James  Buchanan,  in  the  matter  of  the  celebrated 
Covode   special    committee   of   inquiry,   admitted 
freely  the  right  of  Congress  to   inquire  into  the 
failure  of  the  President  or  of  his  subordinates  to 
execute   the   laws,   but   protested    rather  weakly 
against  the  methods  of  the  House  in  proceedings 
preliminary  to  an  impeachment  for  corrupting  Con- 
gress and  its  committees.2     Whenever  a  proposi- 
tion for  these  special  investigations  of  abuses  has 
been  sprung  against  high  Executive  officers,  the 
House  has  always  found  itself  divided  into  two 
camps,  the  defenders  of  Executive  independence 
of  Congress,  and  the  advocates  of  the  control  of 
the   Legislature   over   the   Executive.      Each    of 
these  has  had  its  moderates  and  extremists.     Often 
the  friends  of  the  Administration  have  defied  its 
enemies   to   discover  abuses,   and  welcomed   the 
closest  inquiry,   arguing  that  innocence    will  be 
proved  and  protected  against  injurious  calumny. 
On   the  other  hand,   those  who  have  taken  the 
broadest  grounds  for  investigation  have  claimed 
that  knowledge  of  the  whole  machinery  of  the  de- 

1  For  their  letters,  as  well  as  for  the  lengthy  report  of  Wise 
and  his  committee,  cf.  Appendix  to  C.  D.,  Vol.  XIII.,  Part  II., 
189-224. 

2  C.  G.,  March  29,  1860. 


230  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

parturients  is  necessary  to  performance  of  the  Con- 
stitutional duties  of  the  House  in  the  preparation 
of  laws.  Such  inquiries  have  generally  been  un- 
satisfactory so  far  as  calm  judicial  arrival  at  the 
truth  has  been  concerned.  They  have  been  more 
partisan  than  patriotic.  Sometimes  the  committee 
has  been  dubbed  the  President's,  or  the  whitewash- 
ing committee.  Playing  upon  this  last  expression, 
a  defender  of  the  President  once  denounced  a 
committee  hostile  to  the  Administration  as  a  black- 
washing  committee.  Daniel  Webster  complained 
of  the  report  of  a  committee  to  inquire  into  the 
burning  of  Washington  as  calculated  "to  cover 
up  in  a  mass  of  prolixity  and  detail  what  he  con- 
sidered a  most  disgraceful  transaction." *  Ten 
years  later  Webster  is  himself  the  principal  figure 
in  an  investigating  committee,  one  with  which 
Presidential  aspirations  are  deeply  effervescent; 
and  John  Quincy  Adams  suspects  that  the  "  timid, 
insidious,  and  treacherous  partiality"  of  the  New 
England  Samson  in  conducting  the  affair  comes 
because  of  the  promise  of  a  high  office  uin  the 
event  of  Crawford's  election."  2  Of  the  undigni- 
fied conduct  of  the  Seventeenth  Congress  in  those 
rancorous  closing  days  of  the  Era  of  Good  Feeling, 
Schouler  draws  a   lively  picture :    "  Committees 

i  C.  A.,  Nov.  29,  1814. 

2  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  VI.  296  et  seq. ;  Schouler,  III.  307, 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     231 

instituted  inquiries,  ran  the  eye  up  and  down  ac- 
counts, pointed  out  little  items,  snuffed  about  dark 
corners,  peeped  behind  curtains  and  under  beds, 
and  exploited  every  cupboard  of  the  Executive 
household  with  a  mousing  alacrity,  not  so  eager, 
it  would  appear,  to  correct  abuses  as  to  collect 
campaign  material  for  damaging  some  candidate, 
and  playing  the  detective  in  preference  to  the 
judge."  x  Upon  an  investigating  committee  elected 
by  ballot  the  friends  of  President  Van  Buren 
charged  that  the  majority  had  chosen  six  well- 
qualified  members  to  represent  itself,  but  had 
forced  upon  the  minority  three  incompetent  rep- 
resentatives ;  upon  another,  that  upon  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Lecompton  Constitution,  Schouler 
affirms  that  Speaker  Orr,  in  order  to  stifle  the 
matter,  gave  a  majority  of  one  to  those  who  op- 
posed the  inquiry ;  upon  another,  during  Grant's 
Presidency,  the  Administration  Senators,  accord- 
ing to  The  Nation,  put  lukewarm  members  and 
but  one  Democrat.2  The  effect  of  the  work  of 
these  high  political  committees,  if  any  follows,  is 
therefore  to  be  discovered  in  the  returns  of  na- 
tional election  days.  Andrew  Jackson  came  from 
Tennessee  to  Washington  in  1819  to  await  im- 
patiently the  conclusion  of  an  inquiry  into  the 
Arbuthnot  and  Ambrister  affair ;  with  the  decision 

1  Schouler,  III.  258. 

2  Schouler,  V.  394 ;  The  Nation,  Dec.  21, 1871, 


232  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

of  the  committee  in  his  favor  the  political  doom 
of  those  who  pressed  for  the  investigation  was 
sealed,  and  the  hero  of  New  Orleans  started  upon 
a  tour  of  glory  which  brought  him  to  the  White 
House.  The  voluminous  report  of  the  Covode 
committee  furnished  campaign  material  to  aid  the 
Republicans  in  the  election  of  Abraham  Lincoln.1 
But  where  the  attack  of  such  select  committees 
has  been  directed  against  lesser  offenders  than  those 
of  immediate  Presidential  circles,-  against  those 
whose  duties  are  rather  administrative  than  politi- 
cal, and  especially  against  those  who  are  guilty  of 
financial  dishonesty,  some  good  may  be  said  to  have 
been  done  in  the  direction  of  pure  and  economical 
government.  The  Star  Route  disclosures  are  an 
illustration.2  In  the  beginning  of  the  Civil  War, 
July  8,  1861,  select  committees  were  appointed  to 
report  at  any  time  upon  secessionists  in  office  and 
upon  government  contracts ;  and  a  little  later  were 
given  the  unusual  rights  to  sit  during  the  recess,  to 

1  "  The  Covode  Inquisition  "  was  a  broad  inquiry  into  James 
Buchanan's  administration,  generally  as  to  the  corrupt  practices 
of  spoils  officials,  and  particularly  as  to  the  President's  attitude 
toward  the  Lecompton  Constitution  of  Kansas.  Cf.,  for  a  sum- 
mary of  its  damaging  disclosures,  Schouler's  "History  of  the 
United  States,"  V.  450-452.  The  findings  of  the  Committee  in 
massive  detail  are  extant  in  36:1,  House  Reports,  Vol.  V.,  No. 
648,  June  16,  1860,  835  pages. 

2  Another  successful  case  is  commented  upon  in  John  Sher- 
man's Autobiography,  I.  158-161.  Sherman  also  gives  a  full  ac- 
count of  the  mission  of  a  committee  upon  which  he  served,  one. 
which  went  to  investigate  the  troubles  in  "Bleeding  Kansas." 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     233 

travel,  to  employ  stenographers  and  clerks,  to  use 
subpoenas  issued  by  the  Speaker,  and  to  command 
the  services  of  the  Sergeant^at-Arms.  Although 
strongly  objected  to  by  some  upholders  of  the  Ad- 
ministration, the  latter  committee  was  a  valuable 
check  upon  profligacy  in  the  rapid  expenditure  of 
millions  of  dollars.1  Later,  in  1866,  the  joint  select 
Committee  on  Retrenchment  arose  and  ran  its  course 
of  six  years,  laying  bare  abuses  in  the  disordered 
civil  service,  notable  in  the  New  York  custom-house 
and  in  the  transportation  of  merchandise  from  Cal- 
ifornia to  New  York.  Historically  it  stands  in  a 
parental  relation  to  the  present  standing  commit- 
tees on  Civil  Service  and  Retrenchment  in  the  Sen- 
ate, and  on  Civil  Service  Reform  in  the  House. 
Like  the  slavery  question  formerly  in  general 
American  politics,  the  spoils  system  is  the  hidden 
key  to  most  Congressional  inquiries. 

On  these  very  occasions  the  question  was  pro- 
pounded :  Why  raise  a  select  committee,  when  there 
are  eight  standing  committees  on  expenditures? 
The  original  standing  Committee  on  Expenditures 
was  created  near  the  close  of  the  war  of  1812  as  a 
relief  for  the  Ways  and  Means.2  Its  duties  were 
to  examine  into  the  state  of  the  departments  and 
of  appropriation  laws,  to  watch  for  violations  of 
the  law  in  expenditures,  and  to  report  provisions 
looking  to  economy  and  to  accountability  of  pub- 

1  C.  G.,  July  17,  1861.  *  C.  A.,  Feb.  24,  26, 1814. 


234  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

lie  officers.  At  the  next  Congress  a  magnificent 
phalanx  of  six  standing  committees,  one  for  each 
department  and  one  for  public  buildings,  was  es- 
tablished. These  were  measures  proposed  by  Vir- 
ginia Congressmen,  Eppes  and  Tucker,  during  the 
administration  of  a  Virginia  President.  Since  that 
time  three  others  have  been  added,  and  the  original 
committee  has  been  abolished.1  A  foreigner,  sur- 
veying at  any  time  since  1816  the  impressive  chart 
of  duties  laid  out  for  these  committees  in  the  rules, 
and  ignorant  of  the  facts,  might  surmise  that  they 
were  House  committees  of  the  highest  importance, 
just  as  he  might  be  impressed  with  the  elaborate 
provisions  for  an  electoral  college  in  the  national 
Constitution.  But  the  truth  is,  that  their  names 
have  usually  been  by-words  with  the  Representa- 
tives ;  and  the  Speaker,  while  he  may  honor  them 
now  and  then  with  the  names  of  leaders  on  the 
great  House  committees,  blesses  them  in  his  ap- 
pointments as  convenient  shelving  places  for  the 
members  with  whose  unfitness  as  legislators  he  has 
been  impressed.  Why  they  have  proved  thus  in- 
significant is  doubtless  due  partly  to  the  disinclina- 
tion of  the  average  Congressman  for  the  thankless 
task  of  the  detective  and  the  economist.  Waste  of 
public  money  is  as  often  a  legislative  as  an  admin- 
istrative sin ;  many  will  say  oftener.  The  custom 
has  come  to  be,  in  view  of  the  facts  that  gross  ad- 

1  See  Appendices  I.  and  II. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND  CONGRESS.     235 

ministrative  abuses  are  exceptional  incidents,  and 
that  entire  Congresses  may  slip  by  without  scandal 
in  the  Administration,  to  constitute  the  standing 
committees  on  expenditures  upon  grounds  other 
than  those  assigned  for  them,  and  to  rely,  when 
a  grave  call  for  investigation  arises,  upon  a  se- 
lect committee  of  the  ablest  men  the  House  can 
furnish.  Yet  other  reasons  for  this  unimportance 
are  revealed  in  the  relations  of  the  standing  com- 
mittees for  finance  and  general  legislation  to  the 
Executive  departments. 

These  relations  with  the  Administration  are  the 
most  important  study  of  all.  It  is  not  in  the  ex- 
posure of  abuses,  but  in  the  direction  of  adminis- 
trative activity  through  the  power  of  granting  or 
withholding  money  and  of  enacting  new  restrictive 
laws,  that  Congress  finds  by  far  its  greatest  power 
over  the  Executive,  and  vice  versa.  It  is  in  the 
arcana  where  laws  have  their  birth  that  Executive 
and  Legislature  come  into  that  steady  contact 
which  yields  the  largest  results.  There  was  little 
fruit  from  the  work  of  the  great  investigating 
committees  connected  with  the  Civil  War  by  way 
of  punishing  wrong-doers,  but  their  names  are  writ- 
ten in  the  foundations  of  that  monument  to  Civil 
Service  Reform  which  Congress  has  built  into  the 
statute-books.  By  far  the  greater  number  of  the 
laws  to  be  enacted  are  of  a  non-political  character. 
The  Cabinet  officer  is  before  the  committee  often, 


236  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

his  subordinates  much  oftener.  He  feels  the  need 
of  being  there,  because  the  success  of  his  work  de- 
pends upon  the  effectiveness  of  his  legal  backing. 
The  committee,  so  largely  composed  of  men  of  en- 
tirely lay  training,  feels  the  need  of  his  counsels 
because  of  his  expert  practical  knowledge  of  the 
working  of  the  law,  his  ability  to  point  out  defects 
and  to  suggest  remedies.  There  is  no  suffrage  for 
the  administrative  officer  in  a  committee  meeting, 
yet  he  has  there  the  more  important  power  which 
superior  knowledge  always  gives.  Whoever  will 
examine  the  printed  cross-examinations  of  a  com- 
mittee hearing,  and  compare  therewith  the  changes 
wrought  through  official  testimony  between  the 
first  and  final  draft  of  a  bill,  must  be  impressed 
with  the  reality  of  the  administrative  influence. 
Yet  in  the  exercise  of  final  judgments  or  decis- 
ions, the  committee  dominates  the  trained  official 
with  a  vigor  that  suggests  the  contrasts  between 
American  popular  self-government  and  European 
bureaucracy.  American  Anglo-maniacs  have  high- 
ly deplored,  and  English  Americano-maniacs  have 
equally  highly  lauded,  the  departure  from  British 
practice  when  Hamilton  set  the  example  of  report- 
ing to  Congress  in  writing  rather  than  in  person.1 
But  the  practice  of  the  committee  room  shows  the 
use  of  both  methods.  As  early  as  1791  the  Con- 
gressional screws  were  being  tightened,  as  the  fol- 

1  Cf.  Maine's  "Popular  Government,"  231  et  seq. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     237 

lowing  standing  orders  then  established  indicate : 
first,  on  the  second  Monday  of  every  session  a  com- 
mittee was  to  be  appointed  to  examine  and  report 
upon  the  state  of  the  Treasury ;  second,  the  Secre- 
tary of  the  Treasury  was  to  report  on  the  finances 
of  the  previous  year  on  the  third  Monday  of  each 
annual  session ;  third,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treas- 
ury was  to  report  each  year  in  January  concerning 
appropriations  expended  and  unexpended,  a  com- 
mittee being  immediately  appointed  to  examine 
said  report.  By  the  statutes  of  the  United  States 
the  number  of  printed  reports  to  Congress  from 
various  administrative  officers  upon  various  sub- 
jects, most  of  them  required  annually,  has  since 
then  increased  to  more  than  two  hundred  and 
thirty.1  To  these  must  be  added  legions  of  special 
reports  in  response  to  the  constant  running  de- 
mands of  committees.  Thirty-nine  volumes,  with 
near  thirty  thousand  printed  pages,  extensive  in- 
dexes, expensive  maps,  charts,  and  other  illustra- 
tions, was  the  contribution  in  the  way  of  Executive 
documents  to  a  single  session  of  the  Fifty-second 
Congress. 

In  making  up  the  general  appropriation  bills, 
each  committee  compares  those  of  these  reports 
which  fall  within  its  sphere  of  action  with  the  gen- 
eral Book  of  Estimates  furnished  by  the  Secretary 
of  the  Treasury.     If  there  is  a  call  for  additional 

1  For  the  list,  cf .  53 : 2,  "  Manual  and  Digest,"  H.  of  E.,  617-646. 


238  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

expenditures,  the  officer  demanding  them  is  almost 
certain  to  be  summoned  before  the  committee  to 
make  explanations.  For  example,  before  the  sub- 
committee of  the  Appropriations  in  charge  of  the 
Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  Bill  appeared,  from 
March  12  to  March  21,  1896,  between  fifty  and 
sixty  administrative  officers  of  various  grades.  The 
chairmen  of  the  Appropriations  for  two  successive 
Congresses,  Messrs.  Sayers  and  Cannon,  unitedly 
affirm  that  the  Appropriations  enters  upon  its  bills 
no  items  which  are  not  recommended  from  the  Sec- 
retaries of  the  departments,  or  in  the  Book  of  Esti- 
mates compiled  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.1 
This  Book  of  Estimates,  as  submitted  for  1897,  car- 
ried 1410,080,033.92,  which  was  reduced  by  the 
House  standing  committees  to  8383,575,524.65  ; 
increased  by  amendment  in  the  House  Committee 
of  the  Whole  to  $383,996,842.25 ;  increased  by  the 
Senate  standing  committees  to  1403,699,852.69  ; 
increased  by  amendments  in  the  Senate  to  $406,- 
917,285.55  ;  and  reduced  in  conference  committees 
to  $396,280,660.49.2  Writers  who  make  sweep- 
ing assertions  of  the  chaotic  relations  between 
Legislature  and  Executive  disregard  old  custom, 
which  creeps  in  like  green  blades  upon  stony 
streets,  gently  though  silently  filling  up  the  chinks 

1  Hearing  on  the  Sundry  Civil  Appropriation  Bill  for  1897, 
251,  252. 

2  Cf.  the  speeches  and  tables  of  Messrs.  Cannon  and  Sayers, 
C.  R.,  June  10,  1896. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND   CONGRESS.     239 

between  the  laws.  They  have  directed  their  criti- 
cism ineffectually  against  the  organization  of  the 
House  or  of  the  Administration,  and  utterly  failed 
to  suggest  improvements  at  the  point  where  the 
two  come  together,  namely,  in  the  committee  room. 

In  their  liability  to  be  controlled  by  different  par- 
ties, enhanced  as  it  is  by  the  different  bases  upon 
which  they  are  constituted,  obstacles  to  coopera- 
tion between  the  Senate  and  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives have  been  noticed  at  the  outset  of  this 
chapter.  Three  species  of  equality  are  discernible 
in  the  Federal  Government,  —  personal  equality,  as 
in  the  House  constituencies ;  territorial  or  histor- 
ical equality,  as  in  the  States  which  Senators  repre- 
sent; and  corporate  equality,  as  in  the  three  grand 
divisions  of  the  Constitution,  or  in  the  relations  of 
the  two  branches  of  Congress.  This  latter  kind 
confronts  the  student  of  methods  of  communica- 
tions between  the  Senate  and  the  House.  It  is 
here  a  peculiar  equality,  since  it  does  not  permit  the 
principle  of  majority  rule  to  operate.  Compromise, 
the  entire  yielding  of  one  party,  or  the  failure  of  a 
measure,  are  the  alternatives  when  there  is  disagree- 
ment. "  We  must  give  and  take,"  says  Senator 
Cullorm  Each  lawmaking  body  has  some  functions 
that  are  not  shared  by  the  other.  Each  is  jeal- 
ously watchful  of  encroachments  on  its  prerogative. 

These  and  other  facts  that  may  suggest  them- 
selves all  tend  to  minimize  an  overriding  of  the  bi- 


240  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

cameral  idea  by  the  use  of  committees  constituted 
of  members  from  both  branches.  In  fact,  with  the 
exception  of  conferences  upon  money  bills,  the  ex- 
perience of  our  national  legislature  has  added  little 
or  nothing  to  the  practice  worked  out  in  the  Brit- 
ish Parliament  before  ever  there  was  thought  of 
an  American  confederation  of  colonies.1  Devel- 
opments in  some  Northern  Commonwealth  legisla- 
tures are,  on  the  contrary,  much  more  marked. 
That  of  Massachusetts  conducts  the  affairs  of  or- 
dinary legislation  upon  initiative  of  committees 
with  homogeneous  membership  selected  from  both 
branches,  and  with  the  privilege  of  reporting  indif- 
ferently to  either.2 

Committees  for  relations  between  Senate  and 
House  fall  into  three  classes,  —  joint  committees, 
conference  committees,  and  what,  for  want  of  a 
name,  may  be  called  similar  or  kindred  commit- 
tees. In  the  First  Congress  there  was  a  brave 
start  towards  the  use  of  select  joint  committees. 
The  earliest  was  appointed  April  9,  1789,  to  pre- 
pare rules  for  conference,  and  to  choose  chaplains. 
The  Senate  seemed  particularly  partial  to  them,  at 
least  until  it  was  worsted  in  its  ambition  for  aris- 


1  Cf.,  for  the  simple  details  of  this  anciently  originated  com- 
mon parliamentary  practice,  Jefferson's  Manual,  in  53:2,  "Man- 
ual and  Digest,"  H  of  R. ;  Cushing's  "  Law  and  Practice,"  878  et 
seq. ;  May's  "  Laws  and  Usages,"  437  et  seq. 

2  Cushing's  "Law  and  Practice,"  790;  Manual  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts General  Court.    See  also  Appendix  IV. 


JUDICIARY,  EXECUTIVE,  AND  CONGRESS.     241 

tocratic  titles,  and  for  distinctions  over  the  House 
in  the  way  of  larger  salaries.  They  were  employed 
for  the  ceremonies  of  the  first  inauguration,  and 
have  frequently  since  served  occasions  of  state.1 
Small  joint  committees  regularly  inform  the  Pres- 
ident of  the  assemblage  of  Congress,  and  of  its 
readiness  to  adjourn.  They  have  now  and  then 
arranged,  as  between  the  two  branches,  allotment 
of  space  in  the  Capitol  building,  as  in  the  case  of 
the  New  York  City  Hall  in  1789.2  Certain  joint 
standing  committees,  four  in  number,  have  at- 
tended to  matters  of  routine  legislative  business. 
In  July,  1789,  the  joint  rules  established  such  a 
committee  to  correct  errors  in  engrossed  bills,  and 
to  present  them  for  signature  to  the  President.  To 
this  have  been  added,  Dec.  7, 1843,  the  Committee 
on  the  Library,  which  had  select  committees  for 
predecessors  as  early  as  1800-1802;  the  Commit- 
tee on  Printing,  July  24,  1846  ;  and  the  Committee 
on  Disposition  of  Useless  Papers  in  the  Executive 
Departments,  Feb.  16,  1889.  Although  the  joint 
rules,  after  a  continuous  existence  of  eighty-seven 
years,  disappeared  by  a  singular  disagreement  be- 
tween the  Houses  in  1876,  the  Enrolled  Bills  and 
the  Library  still  by  tacit  consent  perform  joint  as 
well  as  separate  functions,  and  the  other  two  are 
established  by  the  laws.3     Earlier  Congresses  were 

i  See  above,  Chapter  II.  «  cf.  also  C.  A.,  Jan.  18,  1817. 

3  R.  S.,  Section,  3656;  Stats,  at  L.,  Vol.  XXV.  672. 


242  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

wont  to  couple  together  for  determination  of  a  joint 
committee  the  fixing  of  a  time  for  adjournment 
and  the  question  of  legislation  necessary  to  be  com- 
pleted.1 A  Senate  bill  passed  in  1800,  but  rejected 
by  the  House,  proposed  to  choose  by  lot  a  so-called 
Grand  Committee,  composed  of  an  equal  number 
from  each  branch,  and  empowered  to  decide  se- 
cretly and  without  revision  all  matters  relating  to 
that  vexed  joint  function  of  counting  the  electoral 
votes  for  President  and  Vice-President.2  Henry 
Clay,  after  ordinary  processes  of  legislation  had 
failed,  successfully  used  the  joint  committee  for  a 
speedy  completion  of  the  Missouri  Compromise.3 
In  the  period  of  secession  and  reconstruction,  the 
decade  from  1861  to  1871,  center  the  most  impor- 
tant phenomena  for  the  study  of  joint  committees. 
They  flourished  then  because  of  the  centralizing 
influence  of  war  in  demanding  larger  and  prompter 
legislation ;  because  of  the  economy  of  substituting 
a  united  inquiry  for  two  separate  investigations, 
especially  where  extensive  traveling  was  requisite ; 
and  because  of  the  long  political  accord  of  the  two 
Houses,  coupled  with  their  united  opposition  to 
the  policy  of  the  Executive  towards  the  Southern 
States.  In  this  latter  respect  a  British  parallel 
may  be  drawn  from  the  relations  of  Charles  I.  and 

i  C.  A.,  Jan.  11,  1790;  Dec.  8,  1794;  March  13,  April  1,  8,  1806. 
2  C.  A.,  Index,  under  the  head  "  Elections;  "  Schouler,  I.  463, 
»  C.  A.,  Feb.  20,  21, 1821;  Schouler,  III.  184. 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     243 

Parliament  two  centuries  before.  The  Committee 
on  the  Conduct  of  the  War,  consisting  of  three 
Senators  and  four  Representatives,  was  raised  pri- 
marily to  inquire  into  the  disaster  at  Ball's  Bluff.1 
Later  it  investigated  other  troubles  and  reverses, 
as  the  Fort  Pillow  massacre,  Bull  Run,  the  attack 
on  Petersburg,  the  treatment  of  Northern  pris- 
oners, the  campaigns  of  McClellan,  Banks,  and 
Sherman.  Other  committees  were  those  on  Eman- 
cipation, Condition  of  the  Indian  Tribes,  Recon- 
struction, Southern  Outrages,  and  Retrenchment. 
Nine  Representatives  and  six  Senators  were  favor- 
ite numbers  for  their  membership.  To  name  recent 
examples,  the  subjects  of  Free  Alcohol  in  the  Arts, 
and  of  Charities  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  hav- 
ing evoked  much  discussion  in  the  first  session 
of  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress,  were  referred  by  pro- 
visions in  the  laws  finally  enacted  to  select  joint 
committees  of  three  members  from  each  branch, 
with  instructions  to  hold  hearings  during  the  re- 
cess, and  to  report  by  bill  or  otherwise  on  the  first 
Monday  of  December,  1896.2 

Very  rarely,  then,  are  joint  committees  em- 
ployed for  ordinary  legislation  in  the  American 
Congress.  Their  use  is  confined  mainly  to  mat- 
ters of  routine,  ceremonial,  and  taking  testimony. 
Besides  the  obstacles  pertaining  in  general  to  co- 

1  Blaine's  "Twenty  Years  of  Congress,"  I.  378. 

2  C.  R.,  May,  June,  1896. 


244  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

operation  between  Senate  and  House,  joint  commit- 
tees have  some  peculiar  shortcomings.  Each  House 
will  prefer  sending  a  bill  initiated  and  prepared  at 
its  own  free  will  to  run  the  gantlet  of  amend- 
ment, with  chances  of  escaping  unchanged  in  the 
other  House,  rather  than  in  the  outset  to  have  but 
a  partial  voice  in  a  joint  committee  for  its  prepara- 
tion, and  with  chances  of  a  report  wholly  contrary 
to  its  own  sense.1  The  early  joint  committees  on 
business  met  with  the  disapproval  of  such  states- 
men as  Webster  and  Benton,  because  they  recom- 
mended new  subjects,  instead  of  making  selections 
from  the  calendars  of  the  two  Houses,  and  dictated 
measures  according  to  their  personal  feelings,  with 
too  little  regard  for  the  wishes  of  their  fellows.2 
Those  same  objections  to  concentration  of  power 
in  a  few  hands  which  are  urged  against  the  ordi- 
nary standing  committees  apply  with  manifold 
force  to  a  joint  committee.  Jealousy  between  the 
Houses  is  likely  to  arise  over  the  question  as  to 
which  shall  furnish  the  chairman.  It  has  proved 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  punish  contumacious 
witnesses.3  The  slow  process  of  concurrent  reso- 
lution is  necessary  to  instruction  and  discharge. 
Perhaps  as  great  a  difficulty  as  any,  since  the  vote 
is  per  capita,  lies  in  the  mechanical  impossibility  of 

i  C.  A.,  Jan.  11,  1790. 

2  C.  D.,  April  24, 1828;  Miss  Kerr's  "The  Origin  and  Develop- 
ment of  the  United  States  Senate,"  94,  95. 
8  C.  G.  (Senate),  Dec.  7,  1871. 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     245 

having  an  odd  member  for  avoidance  of  ties  with- 
out giving  the  preponderance  to  one  branch  over 
the  other.1  For  reasons  similar,  it  is  said  that,  up 
to  the  middle  of  the  nineteenth  century,  no  joint 
committees  had  been  employed  in  the  British  Par- 
liament for  one  hundred  and  fifty  years.  "A 
committee  of  the  Senate  with  a  corresponding 
committee  of  the  House  works  much  more  readily, 
more  handily,  and,  I  think,  more  efficiently,"  said 
Heniy  B.  Anthony,  President  pro  tempore  of  the 
Senate. 

While  the  beginnings  of  legislation  are  thus  so 
unyielding  to  joint  action,  it  is  fairly  indispensable 
to  the  completing  touches.  For  these  has  been 
elaborated  the  conference.  Conference  committees 
are  confined  in  jurisdiction  to  the  adjustment  of 
those  points  in  a  bill  upon  which  the  Houses  dis- 
agree.2 They  vote  as  two  coequal  bodies,  a  ma- 
jority of  each  being  necessary  to  agreement.  From 
long  experience  they  have  come  to  consist  almost 
invariably  of  three  Senators  and  three  Representa- 
tives, the  small  number  being  favorable  to  dispatch, 
and  the  equal  weight  of  membership  to  a  fair  con- 
test. The  leading  men  of  the  committees  having 
charge  in  their  respective  Houses  of  the  bill  about 
which  there  is  variance  are  selected  as  the  confer- 
ees, and  styled  the  "  managers."     The  prime  idea 

i  C.  G.  (Senate),  Dec.  12,  1865. 

2  Cf.  decision  of  Speaker  Clay,  C.  A.,  June  23,  1812. 


246  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

upon  which  conferences  are  based  is  dispatch  to- 
ward positive  legislation ;  and  all  the  parliamentary 
rulings  under  increasing  necessities  of  time,  num- 
bers, and  business  have  tended  to  make  them  in- 
creasingly important.  That  they  early  took  a 
leading  place  in  lawmaking  is  indicated  by  a  brief 
statement  of  the  Annals  of  Congress,  June  26, 
1789:  "A  number  of  members  attending  the  in- 
teresting conference  which  took  place  with  the  Sen- 
ate on  the  impost  and  tonnage  bills,  no  business 
was  done  in  this  House.''  On  appropriation  bills, 
however,  the  development  of  their  power  came 
with  the  increasing  tendency  of  the  Senate  to 
amend,  which  was  so  slow  that  by  1819  there  had 
been  but  six  of  them.1  The  present  state  of  affairs 
towards  the  close  of  the  session  in  either  House 
may  be  described  in  the  words  of  Senator  J.  L. 
Mitchell :  "  Even  though  a  conference  report  is 
privileged,  and  may  be  called  up  at  any  time  for 
consideration,  other  conference  reports  are  press- 
ing, and  above  all  loom  the  appropriation  bills  and 
their  innumerable  conference  reports."  2 

Almost  every  writer  on  Congressional  methods 
has  denounced  the  conference  committee.  In  the 
eyes  of  Professor  Hart  it  -is  a  tyrant.3  The  Libra- 
rian of  Congress  is  impressed  with  the  vastness  of 

1  Miss  C,  H.  Kerr's  "History  of  United  States  Senate,"  76. 

2  Article,  "  How  a  Law  is  Made,"  North  American  Review, 
November,  1894. 

3  "  Practical  Essays  on  American  Government,"  221. 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,  AND  CONGRESS.     247 

its  power  in  absorbing  the  functions  of  individual 
members.1  Since  it  is  raised,  in  the  most  impor- 
tant instances,  upon  non-concurrence  of  the  House 
with  Senate  amendments,  Senator  Hoar  declared, 
previous  to  his  transfer  from  the  House,  that  the 
former  body  was  put  under  a  degrading  duress.2 
Its  reports,  say  those  who  have  opposed  its  en- 
croachments, are  of  the  highest  privilege ;  cannot 
be  amended  ;  are  so  lengthy,  complex,  and  unintel- 
ligible that  new  and  extraneous  measures  creep  in 
surreptitiously  and  become  laws  without  the  knowl- 
edge of  those  who  vote  for  their  passage.3 

While  these  evils  will  be  admitted  to  exist  in 
the  most  aggravated  forms,  it  is  well  to  inquire 
how  far  they  may  be  considered  exceptional  and 
limited  in  scope.  Senator  Hoar  argues  that  the 
defect  is  organic  in  the  gravest  instances,  lying 
not  in  the  conference,  but  in  the  power  of  the  Sen- 
ate to  amend  money  bills.4  Conferences  are  of 
remedial  intent.  They  give  one  more  opportunity 
for  deliberation.  An  amendment  may  be  good  in 
that  it  corrects  some  oversight;  and,  if  the  non- 
concurring  House  be  won  over  in  conference,  the 
worthiest  object  of  a  bicameral  system  is  realized. 
An  amendment  may  be  bad,  and  the  conference 

1  Article  on  Congress  (United  States)  by  A.  R.  Spofford, 
Lalor's  Encyclopedia,  I.  589. 

2  North  American  Review,  cxxviii.  118,  119. 

8  Remarks  of  Senator  Lyman  Trumbull,  C.  G.,  June  15,  1860. 
4  Cf .  article  cited  above. 


248  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

gives  another  chance  to  fight  the  wrong.  Leaving 
out  the  history  of  the  general  appropriation  bills, 
conferences  may  be  said  to  be  comparatively  rare, 
amounting  in  the  period  from  May  25  to  June  13, 
1896,  the  closing  days  of  the  session,  to  eleven  on 
seventy-five  public  or  local  bills,  and  to  eight  on 
one  hundred  and  forty-one  private  bills  which 
reached  the  President.  None  of  these  required  a 
second  conference.  Reports  of  managers  on  gen- 
eral legislation  or  private  bills  are  usually  short, 
and  from  the  nature  of  the  case  easily  understood. 

With  rare  exception  the  conference  reports  upon 
great  appropriation  bills  are  the  only  ones  amen- 
able to  the  charge  of  obscurity.  In  practice,  such 
bills  involve  several  successive  conferences,  each 
one  briefer  than  the  last,  as  points  of  disagreement 
are  compromised.  At  the  first  session  of  the 
Fifty-fourth  Congress  the  District  of  Columbia 
bill  required  five ;  The  Legislative,  Executive,  and 
Judicial,  five;  the  Indian,  six;  the  Post-Office, 
two ;  the  Naval,  four ;  the  Sundry  Civil,  five ; 
the  River  and  Harbor,  three ;  the  Fortifications, 
one ;  the  Deficiencies,  two ;  the  Agriculture,  one. 
Time  occupied  in  conferences  may  be  estimated 
by  comparison  of  the  dates  upon  which  these  bills 
passed  the  Senate  with  the  dates  upon  which  they 
became  laws.     The  average  was  thirty-three  days. 

The  danger  of  obscurity  in  conference  reports 
is  mitigated  by  the  long  discussions  earlier  in  the 


JUDICIARY,    EXECUTIVE,   AND   COX  GUESS.      249 

session,  which  have  familiarized  Congressmen  with 
the  provisions  of  the  bills.  When  a  bill,  however 
heavily  loaded  with  Senate  amendments,  comes  out 
of  conference,  there  are  more  than  three  hundred 
Representatives  each  supplied,  for  purposes  of  ready 
comparison,  with  his  printed  copies  of  the  report, 
and  of  the  bill  as  passed  by  the  Senate.  Since 
1880  the  House  has  required  of  its  conferees  ex- 
plicit and  detailed  explanations  in  writing.1  In 
the  Senate,  by  invariable  custom,  conference  re- 
ports have  come  to  lie  over  at  least  one  night,  so 
that  members  may  have  leisure  to  inspect  them.2 
The  latter  is  doubtless  the  better  safeguard,  but 
the  practices  of  the  two  branches  might  advan- 
tageously be  combined  and  supplemented  by  pub- 
licity of  conference  sessions.  After  a  conference 
the  leading  manager  usually  accompanies  the  writ- 
ten results  with  a  verbal  explanation,  members  in- 
terpolate him,  and  vigorous  debate  may  follow 
preparatory  to  a  new  trial  upon  points  not  yet 
settled. 

With  such  chances  against  concealed  paragraphs, 
conferences  which  assume  functions  of  joint  com- 
mittees must  do  so  with  little  expectation  of  es- 
caping notice.  That  they  do  initiate  legislation  is 
true,  but  as  to  the  frequency  of  the  offense  doctors 

i  Rule  XXIX.,  H.  of  R. 

2  Cf.  the  use  made  of  this  opportunity  hy  Senator  Hale,  C.  R., 
May  28,  1896. 


250  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

disagree.  Senator  Chandler  has  affirmed  of  one 
such  instance  that  it  is  the  most  extraordinary  par- 
liamentary proceeding  during  his  nine  years  of  ser- 
vice as  a  Congressman.  Senator  Allison  supports 
him  with  the  statement  that  such  a  thing  has  been 
done  but  once  upon  an  appropriation  bill  during 
the  twenty-three  years  of  his  membership  with  the 
Appropriations,  and  then  sub  silentio  ;  that  it  has 
been  done  upon  other  bills  only  with  unanimous 
leave  of  the  Senate.  On  the  other  hand,  Senator 
Vest  cites  the  tariff  bill  of  1883  as  an  example, 
Senator  Teller  declares  that  some  of  the  best 
national  laws  have  originated  in  conferences,  and 
other  Senators  allege  various  instances.1  It  is  a 
mooted  question  of  parliamentary  law  whether 
such  legislation  may  be  ruled  out  of  conference 
reports  by  the  presiding  officer  in  either  branch,  as 
seems  to  have  been  done  in  one  case  by  Speaker 
Reed.2 

As  for  the  conferees,  they  are,  as  a  rule,  true 
leaders  in  their  respective  Houses ;  the  most  skill- 
ful and  learned  specialists  upon  the  subjects  in 
controversy ;  each  seeking  in  the  contest  the  honor 
of  his  own  branch ;  each  sensible  of  the  possibility 
that  those  whom  he  represents  may  reject  his  work ; 
tried  and  trusted  men,  who  seek  to  be  instructed  as 

1  C.  R.,  debate  on  Indian  Appropriation  Bill,  May  28,  29, 
June  1,  1896. 

2  Ibid. 


JUDICIARY,   'EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     251 

to  the  collective  will  of  their  fellows,  rather  than 
to  force  their  own  desires  upon  reluctant  voters. 

Which  branch  is  most  frequently  victorious  in 
a  conference  contest,  is  an  interesting  question. 
It  will  very  probably  require  different  answers  for 
different  periods  in  the  long  history  of  Congress. 
In  the  first  case  of  adherence  the  House  won 
through  the  casting  vote  of  Vice-President  Jeffer- 
son in  the  Senate.1  The  prevailing  opinion  of  re- 
cent observers  is  on  the  side  of  the  Senate.  This 
view  may  be  modified  upon  consideration  that  the 
Senate  is  the  sole  amending  body  in  the  case  of 
bills  which  receive  great  notice ;  namely,  those  for 
revenue  and  expenditure.  It  is  a  mere  matter  of 
form  for  the  House  to  disagree  in  bulk  to  all 
amendments  of  an  appropriation  bill  when  it  is 
returned  from  the  Senate,  but  a  first  conference 
will  discover  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  changes 
are  not  really  matters  of  disagreement.  Thus  the 
first  report  upon  the  River  and  Harbor  Bill  of 
1896  quickly  disposed  of  more  than  three  hundred 
challenged  amendments  by  the  receding  of  the 
House,  amended  some  thirty  Senate  amendments, 
and  left  only  three  items  for  a  second  conference.2 
Of  the  total  amount  for  1896  adjusted  in  confer- 
ences upon  appropriation  bills,  $22,920,442.30,  the 
House  yielded  $12,283,818.24.  The  bitterest  and 
most  prolonged  struggles  occur  over  riders  attached 

1  C.  A.  (Senate),  Aug.  25, 1789.      *  c.  R.  (Senate),  May  20, 1896. 


252  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

by  the  Senate,  for  the  attitude  of  the  two  codes  of 
rules  upon  that  subject  is  now  the  reverse  of  what 
it  used  to  be.  Many  of  these  objectionable  addi- 
tions are  instigated  by  House  members  who  run 
over  to  the  Senate  wing,  especially  by  minority  Rep- 
resentatives when  the  two  branches  are  controlled 
by  opposite  parties,  and  by  Representatives  from 
new  Western  States  which  are  insignificant  in 
the  popular,  but  powerful  in  the  territorial  body. 
"  The  rule  is  unvarying  that  the  body  proposing 
legislation  as  a  rider  upon  a  money  bill  must  re- 
cede if  the  other  body  will  not  assent,"  declared 
Mr.  Cannon,  the  most  prominent  conferee  of  the 
House  in  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress.  But  the  rule 
has  been  broken.  After  fighting  long  the  attach- 
ment of  nearly  two  million  dollars  of  French  spo- 
liation claims  to  the  General  Deficiency  Bill,  the 
House,  in  June,  1896,  had  to  give  way,  but  Presi- 
dent Cleveland  came  to  its  rescue  with  a  veto;  and 
the  Republican  chairman  of  Appropriations  glee- 
fully reported,  for  quick  passage  through  both 
branches,  a  new  bill  which  left  out,  not  only  the 
Senate  rider,  but  also  claims  to  which  the  President 
had  not  objected. 

While,  occasionally,  self-reliant  characters  in  Sen- 
ate, House,  and  Executive  have  strongly  marked 
the  highest  insistence  for  the  independence  of  the 
three,  and  while  conferences  are  required  for  im- 
portant  disagreements,    these    noisily   advertised 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     253 

events  should  not  distract  attention  altogether  from 
the  quiet  undercurrent  of  steady  connections  which 
in  passing  years  has  worked  more  and  more  for  the 
unity  of  the  government.  The  same  increasing  di- 
vision of  labors  has  gone  on  in  all  three,  —  in  the 
two  branches  of  Congress  by  parallel  committee 
lists,  and  in  the  Executive  by  a  corresponding 
erection  of  departments  and  bureaus.  For  eighty 
years  a  standing  committee  of  Ways  and  Means  in 
the  House,  a  standing  committee  of  Finance  in  the 
Senate,  and  an  Executive  Department  of  the  Treas- 
ury have  been  in  constant  existence  and  in  remoter 
or  closer  touch  with  each  other.  Every  now  and 
then  another  such  triangular  link  is  bound  about 
the  tripartite  system.  The  classification  of  appro- 
priations into  thirteen  bills,  and  the  distribution  of 
these  among  seven  House  committees  thus  far,  with 
likelihood  that  the  Senate  will  follow  suit  in  trim- 
ming away  the  sole  jurisdiction  of  its  great  finance 
committee,  doubtless  similarly  tend  to  closer  con- 
nections. One  statesman  argued  for  this  distribu- 
tion in  the  House  that  it  would  lessen  the  Senate's 
power  of  amending ;  and  it  may  be  said  to  have  in- 
creased, or  at  least  to  have  conserved,  the  veto 
power  of  the  President.  The  growth  of  the  Senate 
standing  committee  system,  owing  to  less  pressure 
in  that  body  of  increasing  numbers  and  business, 
has  in  general  slowly  followed  the  rapid  expansion 
in  the  House.    When,  in  December,  1816,  the  upper 


254  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

chamber  decided  for  the  plan  of  standing  commit- 
tees by  creating  outright  a  dozen  of  them,  nine  had 
the  same  functions  as  nine  committees  long  before 
entered  upon  the  House  list.  This  correspondence 
may  be  asserted  to-day  of  the  duties  of  twenty-five 
or  thirty ;  twenty-two  committee  names  are  identi- 
cal in  the  two  systems ;  and  all  except  the  Census 
and  the  Epidemic  Diseases  in  the  Senate  list,  and 
the  Alcoholic  Liquor  Traffic  in  that  of  the  House, 
are  paralleled  in  one  way  or  another.1  There  are 
routes  from  the  committee  rooms  in  one  wing  to  the 
committee  rooms  in  the  other  which  are  becoming 
more  beaten  paths ;  printing  draws  the  two  Houses 
together ;  conferees  are  but  sub-committees  of  these 
similar  committees;  cases  are  of  record  where  con- 
current resolutions  have  authorized  kindred  com- 
mittees to  act  jointly,  and  it  is  said  that  they 
sometimes  come  together  of  their  own  motion.2 

Inspection  of  the  bonds  between  the  House,  the 
Senate,  and  the  Executive  reveals  the  following 
prominent  features :  — 

1.  The  Judiciary  and  the  Foreign  Affairs  are 
distinguished  among  the  committees  for  singular 
character.  The  Judiciary  is  largely  exempt  from 
the  influences  of  current  political  strife,  and  the 
Foreign    Affairs    from    the    ordinary   party   lines 

1  A  chronicle  of  the  Senate  committees  is  contained  in  37 : 3, 
Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  No.  42. 

2  How  signally  did  the  House  coerce  the  Senate  hy  refusing  to 
appoint  the  committees  at  the  special  session  of  1897  ! 


JUDICIARY,   EXECUTIVE,   AND   CONGRESS.     255 

drawn  by  domestic  policies.  In  the  Senate  they 
have  jurisdiction  over  treaties,  and  appointments 
to  the  bench. 

2.  There  has  been  an  increasing  interaction  of 
Executive  and  Congress  upon  each  other,  mainly 
and  steadily  through  the  regular  work  of  the  com- 
mittees in  preparing  general  appropriations  and 
general  legislation.  Presidential  messages  of  early 
times  played  a  part  in  developing  the  committee 
systems.  The  spoils  of  office,  and  the  Administra- 
tion's superior  expert  knowledge  of  legislative 
needs,  have  brought  their  baser  and  nobler  influ- 
ences to  bear  upon  committee  action.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  power  of  the  committees  has  occa- 
sionally told  upon  the  results  of  political  cam- 
paigns by  inquiries  into  the  conduct  of  higher 
executive  officers,  and  upon  the  safeguarding  of 
private  rights  or  public  property  by  discoveries 
of  scandal  chiefly  in  the  lower  administrative 
ranks. 

3.  The  House  and  the  Senate  cooperate  rarely 
by  initiatory  work  of  joint  committees  and  mostly 
by  use  of  corresponding  committees,  which,  in  ex- 
treme cases,  complete  legislation  by  their  repre- 
sentatives in  conference. 

4.  Though  progress  in  methods  of  cooperation 
among  the  great  governmental  divisions  has  been 
retarded  by  differences  in  their  character,  tenure, 
and  politics,  and  also  in  the  case  of  Senate  and 


256  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

House  by  mechanical  difficulties,  yet  there  has 
been,  on  the  whole,  an  oiling  of  intercourse,  a  bind- 
ing together  by  the  sutures  of  custom,  which, 
though  quietly  unobtrusive,  is  nevertheless  sub- 
stantial. 


THE    SENATE. 


I  know  what  burdens  of  hatred  every  member  of  this  body- 
must  carry  when  he  goes  home,  because  we  have  insisted  that 
the  inviolable  right  of  asylum  for  the  minority  shall  be  preserved 
here. 

David  Turpie. 


I  am  too  familiar  with  the  grandeur  and  the  sweetness  of  what 
is  called  Senatorial  courtesy  to  wish  to  infringe  in  the  slightest 
degree  upon  the  privilege  of  Senators  on  the  other  side. 

William  E.  Chandler. 


There  is  a  belief  in  the  public  mind  that  proper  deference  is 
not  given  by  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  to  the  demands  and 
interests  of  the  people,  and  that  this  is  largely  due  to  the  fact 
that  Senators  do  not  owe  their  positions  to  the  people  who  are 
permanent,  but  to  the  legislatures  which  are  transient. 

John  H.  Mitchell. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  REIiATIONS. 

The  foregoing  study  of  the  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives is  helpful  for  an  understanding  of 
legislative  methods  in  the  United  States  Senate. 
Exposition  of  the  latter's  development  may  be 
briefer  because  of  a  large  parallelism  in  the  histo- 
ries of  the  two  chambers.  No  Cisatlantic  body 
has  made  such  extensive  contributions  to  parlia- 
mentary law  as  has  the  House.  Indeed,  an  asser- 
tion that  it  has  outstripped  the  House  of  Commons 
might  fail  of  successful  challenge.  Since  the 
House  has  been  the  more  progressive,  the  Senate 
has  been  put  somewhat  in  the  attitude  of  follow- 
ing, a  fact  which  £rops  out  in  the  Senate's  -debates 
from  the  earliest  times.  Whatever  example  the 
Senate  has  set  for  the  House  has  been  meager.  On 
the  other  hand,  much  of  the  Senate's  progress  is 
traceable  to  the  spurring  influence  of  the  lower 
branch.  Though  few  men  have  gone  as  members 
from  the  upper  to  the  lower  body,  a  continuous 
procession  of  legislators,  educated  under  the  strict 
and  intricate  government  of  the  House  and  import- 

259 


260  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

ing  its  ideas  of  procedure,  has  entered  the  Senate's 
doors. 

Mere  citation,  then,  of  the  common  forces  in  the 
background  often  suffices.  For  instance,  the  ex- 
periences of  the  two  have  been  about  the  same  as 
to  investigating  committees ;  public  hearings ;  rela- 
tions with  witnesses ;  the  rivalry  of  the  highly 
diverse  interests  of  our  broad  land  in  legislative 
halls ;  the  main  sectional  struggles  of  North  as 
against  South,  of  East  as  against  West ;  the  slower 
or  faster  progress  attendant  upon  eras  of  peace  and 
prosperity,  or  of  war  and  depression;  the  vastly 
increasing  demands  for  national  legislation  char- 
acteristic of  recent  times.  The  Senate  advances 
tortoise-like  along  many  lines  over  which  the  House 
has  long  since  traveled.  Here  the  stages  which 
it  has  reached  are  to  be  marked.  The  sources 
of  its  history  throw  some  light  upon  the  rise  of 
our  standing  committee  system  which  those  of 
the  House  do  not  furnish.  Finally,  the  compara- 
tive view  brings  out  the  contrast*  between  the  two, 
and  sets  forth  principally  the  Senate's  special  and 
independent  contributions  to  legislative  science. 

The  same  ancient  parliamentary  experience  was 
common  inheritance  for  House  and  Senate  upon 
their  first  assemblage.  Those  old  bonds  the  Sen- 
ate has  cherished  more  tenaciously  than  the  House 
through  all  of  its  history.  From  them  more  con- 
servatively it  drew  for  its  earliest  code  the  most 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.  261 

venerable  forms,  to  which  it  added  few  of  its  own 
devising.1  The  spirit  in  which  the  Senate  was 
conceived,  the  spirit  in  which  it  has  lived,  has  been 
the  spirit  of  the  past.  Go  back  to  the  Constitution 
builders  at  Philadelphia.  Two  forces  are  striving 
among  them.  The  one  looks  back  to  conditions 
which  prevailed  chiefly  in  the  beginnings  of  society, 
to  the  simplicity  and  individual  liberty  which  be- 
longed to  isolated  conditions,  when  men  were  fewer 
and  territorial  reaches  wider.  The  other  urges 
forward  to  the  social  liberty  of  organization,  to  the 
necessity  of  government  more  compound  and  com- 
plex as  the  children  of  men  are  "  fruitful,  and  mul- 
tiply, and  replenish  the  earth."  A  compromise 
between  these  two  determined  the  character  of 
Congress.  In  the  Senate  the  smallest  and  most 
scantily  populated  was  to  be,  and  has  been,  on  an 
equal  footing  with  the  largest  and  most  densely 
populated  State.  The  House  was  made  to  stand 
for  organization,  the  Senate  for  individualism ;.  the 
House  for  nationality,  the  Senate  for  historic  State- 
hood ;  the  House  for  the  American's  coming  eman- 
cipation from  physical  environment,  the  Senate 
for  the  lingering  necessities  imposed  thereby. 

Now,  this  original  spirit  has  not  merely  endured; 
it  has  been  quickened  by  the  circumstances  of 
national  development.  The  Mother  of  States  in 
the  first  and  formative  half  of  our  history  was  not 

l  1:1,  C.  A.,  1.20,  April  16, 1789. 


262  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Massachusetts,  but  Virginia.1  The  Mother  of  Sen- 
ators was  not  New  York,  but  Kentucky.  Even  as 
far  north  as  Wisconsin  the  votes  of  Southern  im- 
migrants tipped  the  scale  against  negro  suffrage 
until  after  the  Civil  War.  Even  as  far  west  as 
Kansas  the  Southerner  met  the  Northerner  in  that 
fierce  deadlock  of  the  late  '50's  which  presaged 
the  end  of  Southern  supremacy  in  all  branches 
of  the  government.  As  late  as  1881  thirty-four 
Senators  were  of  Southern  birth  and  early  train- 
ing, and  two  of  foreign  nativity  had  been  reared 
in  the  South.  Of  the  other  Senators  at  that  time, 
twenty-seven  were  sprung  from  the  group  of  origi- 
nal States  north  of  and  including  Pennsylvania; 
eleven  from  the  States  formed  from  the  Northwest 
Territory,  and  one  from  a  foreign  land.  Virginia 
and  Kentucky  tied  New  York  and  Ohio,  each  as 
the  birthplace  of  seven  Senators.  Their  origin  was 
limited  to  twenty-three  out  of  the  thirty-eight 
States.  In  1897  they  come  from  thirty  of  the  forty- 
five  States.  Seven  are  foreign-born  and  of  North- 
ern education.  Ohio  is  the  banner  Commonwealth, 
with  ten  to  her  credit;  New  York  ranks  second, 
with  eight ;  Virginia  third,  with  five  ;  and  Ten- 
nessee, Massachusetts,  Kentucky,  and  Vermont 
fourth,  with  four  each.  Thirty-six  are  of  South- 
ern nativity,  twenty-eight  from  the  Atlantic  group 
north  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line,  nineteen  from 

1  Roosevelt's  "Life  of  Benton,"  pp.  2,  10,  11. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   263 

the  Northwest  and  the  West.1  The  South  not  only 
reared  her  own  Senators,  but  cradled  those  of  the 
new  frontier  States  which  one  by  one  enlarged  the 
Union.  Her  people  and  her  leaders  have  taught 
the  let-alone  principle,  whether  as  against  centrali- 
zation in  the  government  generally,  or  as  against 
stricter  organization  in  a  code  of  rules  for  the 
Senate.  The  West,  as  a  border-land,  has  stood 
for  relapse  towards  individualism,  independent 
even  of  its  Southern  antecedents.2  The  South 
and  the  West  together  have  always  outnumbered 
the  Northeast  in  the  Senate.  This  "  wide-arched 
Union  "  can  to-day  be  divided  into  two  groups  of 
about  equal  population,  —  the  one  north  of  Mason 
and  Dixon's  Line,  and  east  of  the  Mississippi,  and 
comprising  fourteen  States,  with  from  one-seventh 
to  one-eighth  of  the  country's  area;  the  other  of 
thirty-one  States  in  the  more  sparsely  settled  and 
vastly  larger  outlying  regions.  Add  to  these  facts 
the  Senate's  comparatively  slow  and  limited  growth, 
—  even  now  it  is  not  as  large  as  the  House  was 

1  The  Fifty-fifth  Congress  is  distinguished  "by  the  presence  of 
a  member  who  had  never  been  east  of  the  Mississippi  River  until 
he  orossed  it  on  his  way  to  take  his  seat  in  the  Senate ;  his  inbred 
individualism  is  said  to  be  evidenced,  like  that  of  the  young 
Texan  leader  of  the  House  minority,  by  uncompromising  refusal 
to  don  a  dress-coat. 

2  The  "  Significance  of  the  Frontier  in  American  History,"  by 
F.  J.  Turner,  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  State  Historical  Society 
of  Wisconsin,  1894,  pp.  3,  27-29;  Editorial  on  the  Force  Bill, 
Nation,  Vol.  LII.,  p.  81,  Jan.  29,  1891. 


264  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

a  century  ago,  —  and  the  consequently  less  press- 
ing need  for  encroachment  by  rules  upon  the  pre- 
rogatives of   the  individual  Senator.     All   these, 

—  the  absolute  voting  equality  of  the  States  in  the 
Senate,  the  original  provincial  spirit  which  gave 
it  birth,  the  earlier  predominance  of  the  agricultu- 
ral South,  the  Western  backwoodsman's  traditional 
hatred  of  restraint,  the  smallness  of  membership, 

—  have  thus  far  combined  to  maintain  un  brokenly 
within  the  legislative  hall  the  old  order  against 
the  new,  the  field  of  the  individual  against  the 
field  of  the  body  politic,  minority  against  majority 
rights.  They  are  the  peculiar  and  important  con- 
ditions which  should  be  understood  and  appreciated 
in  a  study  of  the  Senate's  committees,  and  of  the 
general  procedure  which  forms  their  setting. 

Take  first  the  subject  of  the  touch  between  the 
public  and  the  committees  of  the  Senate.  In  the 
Convention  of  1789  the  idea  that  it  should  be  large- 
ly independent  of  popular  influence  held  strong 
ascendency.  In  this  respect  it  was  to  stand  next, 
perhaps,  to  the  Supreme  Court.  Men  who  believed 
that  the  new-born  republic  would  be  turned  to 
monarchical  forms  saw  the  beginnings  of  possible 
aristocracy  in  the  upper  chamber.  These  men  were 
numerous  as  members  of  the  Senate  itself.  Be- 
ginning with  a  bare  quorum  of  twelve,  the  im- 
portant first  session  transacted  its  business  with  a 
working  force  at  no  time  exceeding  eighteen,  and 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   265 

fourteen  months  elapsed  before  the  full  comple- 
ment of  twenty-six  was  present.  This  small  body, 
little  different  in  size  from  an  ordinary  House  com- 
mittee of  our  day,  sat,  during  its  first  five  years,  in 
secret  conclave.1  The  pages  of  Mac  lay's  Journal 
are  full  of  the  whisperings  and  the  caballings 
which  began  with  the  first  hour,  full  of  figures 
passing  along  the  narrow  New  York  streets  from 
house  to  house,  by  day  and  by  night  —  the  begin- 
nings of  the  Senatorial  caucus.  Throughout  the 
history  of  Congress  secrecy  has  characterized  the 
Senate  more  than  the  House.  The  choice  of  Sen- 
ators by  legislatures  has  largely  favored  men  who 
succeed  by  secrecy  —  by  bargain  or  ambush.  Let 
the  visitor  in  the  Senate  gallery  watch  the  groups 
of  two  or  three  in  the  seats  upon  the  floor,  study 
the  soberness  or  the  shining  of  their  faces,  as  they 
bend  together  in  consultation,  and  forget  the  dull 
argument  of  the  speaking  member  under  the  dis- 
turbing consciousness  of  power  that  mocks  the 
public  eye.  How  much  the  weaker  must  be  the 
people's  knowledge  of  the  Senate's  committee  re- 
cesses. Sitting  quietly  among  their  fellows  in  the 
Senate  chamber  are  two,  the  caucus  chieftains, 
whose  power  over  the  Senate  committee  system  is 
of  the  same  character  as  the  power  of  the  Speaker 
over  the  House  committees.  It  is  a  twoTmen  power. 
How  many  Americans  can  name  them  ?     Who  de- 

i  42: 2,  C.  G.,  2875,  April  29,  1872,  remarks  of  John  Sherman. 


266  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

nounces  them  as  autocrats?  Who  urges  for  the 
functions  that  they  perform  a  publicly  known  and 
Constitutional  officer  like  the  head  of  the  House  ? 
All  this  is  not  saying  that  those  many  changes 
which  have  lessened  the  evils  of  secrecy  in  the 
House  have  not  likewise  operated  upon  the  Sen- 
ate, nor  that  the  Senate  has  been  totally  irrespon- 
sive to  the  popular  voice.  In  1856  Senator  John 
P.  Hale  stood  up  alone  among  his  political  foes, 
with  the  vision  of  workmen  spinning  wires  through- 
out the  land,  and  with  fire  in  his  eye  prophetic 
of  the  mighty  evolutions  electricity  was  to  aid. 
How  the  slow  old  leaders  in  their  seats  must  have 
started  as  he  cried,  "  What  we  do  here  to-day, 
to-morrow's  sun  flashes  broadcast  over  the  conti- 
nent!" Freedom  of  debate  is  proving  less  and 
less  adequate  in  the  Senate,  and,  as  a  truer  regula- 
tor, has  come,  and  must  come  in  larger  measure,  re- 
sponsibility to  the  more  and  more  clearly  knowable 
popular  will.  Election  of  Senators  directly  by  the 
people  is  one  step  towards  this  end.1  An  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution  effecting  this  change  in 
the  method  of  choice  seems  inevitable,  if  we  review 
the  growing  agitation  of  recent  years,  both  without 
and  within  the  Senate. 

But  even  with  this  improvement  the  territorial 
basis  of  the  Senate  will  remain  as  a  varying  ele- 

1  "  Election  of  Senators  by  Popular  Vote,"  by  Senator  John  H. 
Mitchell,  The  Forum,  XXXI.  385. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.    267 

ment  for  keeping  it  out  of  harmony  with  the  popu- 
lar majority.  State  representation,  treated  for  the 
House  in  a  preceding  chapter,  has  not  needed  in- 
sistence in  the  Senate.  States  have  there  found 
their  stronghold  upon  the  floor.  The  time  has 
never  been  when  all  of  them  could,  as  a  uniform 
practice,  be  represented  upon  the  committees ;  for 
that  would  mean  half  the  Senators  to  a  committee. 
As  a  rule,  committees  consisted  at  first  of  three, 
and  later  of  five  members.  There  was,  however, 
at  the  First  Congress  one  fully  representative  com- 
mittee of  eleven  on  salaries  for  the  President  and 
the  Vice-President.1  In  earlier  days,  with  occa- 
sional exceptions,  no  State  furnished  two  members 
for  a  committee.  In  the  first  block  of  standing 
committees,  that  of  1816,  other  considerations,  as 
ability  and  sectional  interest,  had  more  weight  than 
State  equality.2  Eleven  committees  of  five  mem- 
bers each  furnished  fifty-five  places  in  all.  States 
most  concerned  held  most  influence  over  a  subject. 
An  Ohio  Senator  was  chairman  of  the  Public 
Lands,  and  three  other  frontier  States  had  mem- 
bership therein.  Upon  the  Commerce  and  Manu- 
factures four  Northern  States  were  represented. 
No  New  Englander  was  upon  the  Military  Affairs, 
no  member  from  a  new  State  upon  the  Pensions 
or  the  Claims.     Upon  the  Judiciary  were  Vermont, 

1  1 : 1,  C.  A.,  1 :  58,  Aug.  6,  1789. 

2  14:2,  S.  J.,  43-45,  Dec.  13,  1816. 


268  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Rhode  Island,  Connecticut,  Kentucky,  Georgia. 
Both  Senators  from  New  Hampshire  were  mem- 
bers of  the  Finance.  Tennessee  was  distinguished 
with  two  chairmanships,  those  of  the  Finance  and 
the  Military  Affairs.  Four  out  of  the  fifty-five  was 
the  commonest  number  of  places  to  a  State ;  but 
Pennsylvania  had  six,  while  Ohio,  North  Carolina, 
South  Carolina,  and  Delaware  had  each  but  one. 

The  principles  of  this  first  list  of  eleven  standing 
committees  characterize  the  fifty-nine  in  the  sys- 
tem of  to-day.  Committees  having  in  charge  broad 
national  interests  are  made  up  of  men  from  all  ex- 
tremes of  the  land,  with  no  State  represented  by 
both  of  its  Senators.  Such  are  the  Appropriations, 
the  Post-Offices  and  Post-Roads,  the  Education  and 
Labor.  Others  particularly  important  to  certain 
regions  are  composed  mainly  of  men  from  those 
regions,  as  the  Fisheries,  the  Relations  with  Can- 
ada, the  Mines  and  Mining.  Occasionally  Sena- 
torial colleagues  find  themselves  upon  a  committee 
together,  the  one  from  the  majority,  the  other  from 
the  minority  party.  Positions  sometimes  come  to 
a  new  member  by  a  sort  of  vested  right  of  his  State. 
In  1837  Mr.  Tipton,  the  new  Senator  from  Indiana, 
took  the  place  as  chairman  of  the  Post-Offices  and 
Post-Roads  of  Mr.  Hendricks,  from  that  State, 
whom  he  had  succeeded.  Senator  Pritchard  of 
North  Carolina  was  assigned  to  the  District  of  Co- 
lumbia in  1895  "because  his  predecessor,  the  late 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   269 

Senator  Vance,  was  for  many  years  an  active  mem- 
ber of  the  committee."  1  Often  Senators  are  tem- 
porarily appointed  to  hold  places  for  men  whose 
entrance  into  full  membership  of  the  Senate  has 
been  for  some  reason  delayed.  Very  commonly  one 
Senator  from  a  State  keeps  them  for  the  other. 
Upon  the  arrival  of  the  Senators  from  the  new 
State  of  Utah  six  places  held  for  them  were  re- 
signed, three  to  each.2  Mr.  Call  of  Florida  advo- 
cated a  rule  which  should  allow  to  no  Senator  more 
than  one  place  upon  the  combined  membership  of 
nine  specified  leading  committees.3  Mr.  Earle,  re- 
cently chosen  as  a  new  Senator  from  South  Caro- 
lina, urged  that  the  delay  of  more  than  a  month  in 
the  reorganization  of  the  Senate's  committees  was 
an  injustice  to  his  State.4  Yet,  as  the  result  of  con- 
stantly finer  readjustments  of  the  committee  posi- 
tions, the  power  of  the  States,  old  and  new,  majority 
and  minority,  has  approximated  as  nearly  as  would 
seem  possible  to  equality.  The  usual  present  quota 
of  places  to  each  Senator  is  six,  though  minority 
members  often  get  but  five.6  Not  only  is  this 
numerical  basis  closely  observed,  but  the  impor- 

1  Washington  Post,  Dec.  15,  1895.  On  this  ground  Senator 
Hanna  claimed  Senator  Sherman's  place  upon  the  Finance,  Wash- 
ington Post,  March  7,  1897.    . 

2  54: 1,  C.  R.,  1774,  Feb.  12,  1896. 

«  47 : 1,  C.  R.,  1947,  March  16, 1882 ;  54 : 1,  C.  R.,  341,  Dec.  27, 1895. 
4  55: 1,  C.  R.,  659,  April  6,  1897. 

6  Each  Congressional  Directory  gives  an  alphabetical  list  of 
Senators  with  their  assignments. 


270  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tant  and  the  unimportant  positions  are  almost  as 
evenly  distributed,  whether  Maine  be  compared 
with  Texas,  or  Nevada  with  New  York.  The  only 
exception  noticeable  in  the  list  of -  the  Fifty-fourth 
Congress  is  a  slight  favoring  of  the  little  group  of 
latter-day  Quids  who  held  the  balance  of  power. 

Another  aspect,  however,  shows  considerable 
inequality.  The  practice  of  assigning  chairman- 
ships according  to  seniority  of  committee  service 
has  operated  in  favor  of  those  States  which  are 
most  conservative,  whether  for  political  or  other 
reasons,  in  changing  their  Senators.  As  a  result 
the  six  States  of  New  England  hold  in  the  Fifty- 
fifth  Congress  a  remarkable  lead,  comparable  only 
to  the  superiority  in  the  Fifty-third  of  a  continu- 
ous chain  of  Southern  States,  Florida,  Alabama, 
Mississippi,  Tennessee,  Arkansas,  and  Missouri. 
With  two-fifteenths  of  the  Senate's  voting  strength 
these  New  England  men  are  either  the  heads,  or  the 
heirs  apparent  to  the  headships,  of  three-fourths 
of  its  standing  committees.  Every  one  of  them 
has  an  important  chairmanship,  and  together  they 
hold  eight  out  of  the  dozen  or  so  which  are  of  the 
first  rank.  The  six  Atlantic  States  immediately 
south  of  them,  including  the  two  most  populous 
and  wealthy  of  the  Union,  have  only  six  chairman- 
ships, but  one  of  which  is  even  of  secondary  impor- 
tance. Beyond  these  are  twelve  Southern  States 
with  eleven  insignificant  minority  chieftainships. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   271 

The  States  of  the  Northwest  Territory,  together 
with  West  Virginia,  hold  eight  first  places,  one- 
half  of  which  are  important.  Just  beyond  these 
is  a  group  of  six,  Iowa,  Minnesota,  the  Dakotas, 
Kansas,  and  Nebraska,  which  stands  next  in  ad- 
vancement to  New  England.  With  two-fifteenths 
of  the  Senate's  membership,  it  holds  first  and  sec- 
ond places  on  three-eighths  of  the  committees ,; 
and  its  Senators  head  ten  of  them,  including  the 
Appropriations  and  the  Foreign  Relations.  The 
remaining  nine  States  of  the  Far  West  have 
twelve  chairmanships,  which  are,  with  one  excep- 
tion, more  of  local  than  of  national  interest. 

Statehood,  as  a  factor,  the  reader  will  have  ob- 
served, is  overshadowed  by  sectionalism.  The  his- 
tories of  the  two  branches  have  not  differed  as  to 
principle  in  this  respect.1  North  and  East  have 
faced  South  and  West.2  Sectionalism  is  proba- 
bly capable  of  greater  exaggeration  in  the  Senate. 
Slower  changes  in  the  Senate's  membership,  easier 
mastery  where  the  body  is  small,  as  well  as  the 
greater  stress  laid  upon  seniority  as  a  test  for  posi- 
tions and  promotions,  work  to  this  end.  The  South 
held  unbroken  control  of  the  Senate  committee 
system  when  its  Senators  withdrew  in  1861,  and 

i  Above,  pp.  48-52. 

2  Cf.  editorials  against  the  dominance  of  the  "  Southern  Oli- 
garchy "  over  the  Senate  committees,  New  York  Tribune,  Dec. 
24, 1849;  Dec.  13, 14, 1855;  Dec.  19,1859;  also  a  triangular  debate 
of  Senators  from  Northeast,  Northwest,  and  South,  35:1,  C.  G., 
41,  Dec.  16,  1857. 


272  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

its  power  was  heightened  then,  as  even  now,  be- 
cause they  had  seen  much  longer  service  than 
those  who  were  coming  from  the  changing  North. 
Likewise  the  older  sisters  of  the  East  have  been 
tenacious  of  power.  With  outward  show  of  cour- 
tesy they  gave  to  Utah  the  share  of  Cinderella. 
Yet  fewer  rivals,  old  age,  and  death  play  a  larger 
part  for  new  Senators  than  for  new  Representa- 
tives. Once  he  has  gained  the  citadels,  the  miner 
from  the  camp  of  the  Rockies  is  peer  of  the  scholar- 
politician  from  Boston.  The  States  south  of  the 
Ohio  and  those  west  of  the  Mississippi  have  com- 
bined during  the  last  three  Congresses,  and  held 
the  Senate's  committees  in  party  equilibrium.1 

Sectionalism  is  interwoven  with  the  question 
of  the  party  composition  of  the  Senate's  commit- 
tees. Here  the  two  branches  of  Congress  have  de- 
veloped different  methods.  Both  began  in  1789 
with  choice  of  committees  by  ballot.  The  House 
quickly  discarded  the  practice ;  the  Senate  found 
it  practicable  for  half  a  century.  "  All  commit- 
tees shall  be  appointed  by  ballot,  and  a  plurality 
of  votes  shall  make  a  choice/'  was  the  brief  rule 
adopted  by  the  latter,  April  16, 1789.  This  clause 
gave  the  largest  group  in  the  chamber  the  head- 
ship of  the  committee  under  process  of  appoint- 


1  The  money  question  has  heen  the  issue ;  for  a  suggestive  de- 
hate  arising  from  this  deadlock,  cf.  54: 1.,  C.  R.,  420-429,  Dec.  30, 
1895. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   273 

ment  because  the  man  of  its  choice  stood  first  in  the 
number  of  votes.  Through  absence  of  concerted 
action,  through  a  very  free  exercise  of  individual 
preferences,  the  committeeman  standing  second  in 
number  of  votes  would  be  elected  by  an  aggrega- 
tion of  voters  slightly,  or  it  may  be  markedly, 
different  from  that  which  had  conferred  the  chair- 
manship. So  it  would  be  as  concerned  the  remain- 
ing members  of  the  committee.  Thus,  at  the  outset 
the  ballot  left  larger  latitude  to  a  minority  than 
did  the  House  regulations,  a  latitude  too  deeply 
grounded  by  the  long  prevalence  of  the  above  rule 
to  be  disregarded  when  later  plans  of  choice  came 
into  vogue.  Custom  has  constrained  the  Speaker 
of  the  House  from  the  first  to  grant  membership, 
in  the  committees  which  he  appoints,  to  its  minor- 
ity, and  to  conform,  in  the  number  of  places  he 
gives,  more  and  more  to  the  exact  ratios  of  the 
House  membership,  in  which  latter  respect  the 
records  of  the  House  seem  fairer  than  those  of 
the  Senate.  But  the  House  minority  had  not  time 
in  the  beginning  to  establish  a  privilege  of  deter- 
mining its  personnel  in  the  committees,  and  on 
that  head  has  only  in  these  later  times  found  the 
Speaker's  arbitrary  authority  limited  by  seniority 
and  other  customs.1     On  the  other  hand,  it  has 


1  The  Speaker  consults  with  the  recognized  minority  leader 
in  slating  the  minority  membership  of  committees,  Washington 
Post,  Dec.  1,  1895. 


274  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

been  the  rare  exception  rather  than  the  rule  for 
the  Senate's  majority  to  have  any  voice  whatever 
in  the  distribution  of  minority  favors. 

The  right  of  the  majority,  or  of  the  plurality, 
to  chairmanships  was  probably  customary  in  the 
beginning.  The  chairmanship  was  not  then  of 
such  importance  as  to  be  fought  over  by  a  com- 
mittee's members.  It  may  be  inferred  that  the 
President  of  the  Senate  would  designate  the  man 
who  had  most  votes  as  chairman  simply  by  nam- 
ing him  first.1  The  Senate's  code  had  for  the  first 
thirty-seven  years  no  provision  giving  the  majority 
the  chairmanships.  The  right  was  established  Dec. 
8, 1826,  by  a  new  rule,  of  which  Ezekiel  F.  Cham- 
bers of  Maryland  was  the  author.  Thenceforward 
the  majority  chose  all  chairmen  upon  distinct  bal- 
lots, and  afterwards  the  remainders  were  filled  out 
by  plurality  votes.  In  1824  the  "right  of  the  ma- 
jority to  largest  representation  upon  a  committee 
was  ratified  by  the  rejection  of  an  odd  proposal  to 
associate  as  one  the  Finance  and  the  Commerce 
and  Manufactures  for  consideration  of  the  tariff 
bill  of  that  year;  the  two  combined  would  have 
given  to  the  Senate's  minority  a  majority  hostile  to 
the  measure.2  The  respective  voting  strengths  of 
the  parties  determined  the  ratios  of  their  commit- 

1  Jefferson's  Manual,  VII.  1 ;  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  384, 
482. 

2  18:1,  S.  J.,  307,  311,  312,  April  20,  21,  1824;  J.  Q.  Adams's 
Memoirs,  I.  383,  385. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.    275 

tee  memberships  under  the  ballot  method  roughly 
indeed ;  for  the  committees  were  small,  and  unex- 
pected results  were  frequently  forthcoming.  There 
were  about  twice  as  many  Republicans  as  Federal- 
ists when,  in  1816,  the  standing  committee  system 
was  initiated.  The  election  at  that  time  resulted 
in  ratios  of  three  Republicans  to  two  Federalists 
for  five  committees,  and  of  four  Republicans  to 
one  Federalist  for  four  committees.  The  minority 
always  had  one  or  two  members  of  a  committee  of 
five,  no  matter  what  the  method  of  appointment. 

Present  day  students  of  the  Congressional  pro- 
cedure need  to  bear  constantly  in  mind  the  differ- 
ence in  the  strength  of  party  lines  in  earlier  and 
later  times.  The  progress  toward  stricter  party 
organization  finally  discarded  the  ballot  system. 
Under  the  ballot  the  accidental  could  figure,  and 
small  combinations  of  Senators,  favored  by  the  un- 
organized condition  of  their  fellows,  could  some- 
times decide  elections.1  The  minority  controlled 
the  Finance  Committee  in  1816,  and  held  the  chair- 
manship of  the  Commerce  and  Manufactures,  while 
the  Military  Affairs  was  chosen  entirely  from  the 
majority.  The  attitude  of  the  sections  towards  the 
War  of  1812,  and  New  England's  superior  financial 
condition  at  its  close,  may  be  recalled  as  explain- 
ing this  arrangement.     The  ballots  for  committee 

1  For  comments  on  phases  of  balloting  for  committees,  cf .  J.  Q. 
Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  329,  336,  369. 


276  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

chairmen  in  1833  and  1835  show  party  struggles 
for  some  places,  but  •  non-partisanship  in  filling 
others.1  There  were  always  three  or  four  scatter- 
ing votes.  Those  were  grand  transitional  times  in 
party  history.  Majorities  in  committee  elections 
were  small  when  places  were  sharply  contested. 
The  personal  element  counted  for  much.  In  1833 
Webster  was  honored  with  a  chairmanship  at  the 
same  time  with  Benton  and  Poindexter.  His  rival 
then  and  in  1835  was  Silas  Wright.  Frelinghuy- 
sen  distanced  Clay  in  1833  by  one  vote ;  but  Clay 
obtained  a  chairmanship  in  1835,  being  elected  by 
a  ballot  of  twenty-three  to  nineteen  over  King 
of  Alabama.  Clayton  won  the  headship  of  the 
Judiciary  over  Forsyth  and  Buchanan  in  turn. 
Calhoun,  the  Nullifier,  was  not  even  put  in  nomi- 
nation. As  a  rule,  in  these  two  ballotings  defeated 
candidates  were  not  afterwards  placed  with  their 
vanquishers  upou  the  committees  for  whose  leader- 
ship they  had  contested.  For  interests  of  the  in- 
terior tried  chairmen  were  reelected  unanimously, 
as  Hendricks  upon  the  Roads  and  Canals,  White 
upon  the  Indian  Affairs,  Grundy  upon  the  Post- 
Offices  and  Post-Roads.  But  upon  the  opening  of 
the  second  session  of  the  Twenty-fourth  Congress, 
Dec.  12,  1836,  the  very  men  who  at  the  first  ses- 
sion had  chosen  Clay  and  Webster  to  the  headships 
of  the  Foreign  Relations  and  the  Finance,  deposed 

i  23: 1,  C.  D.,  Pt.  I.,  pp.  42,  43;  24: 1,  C.  D.,  Pt.  I.,  pp.  11,  12. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.    277 

them  to  lay  membership  upon  their  committees, 
and  put  in  their  places  James  Buchanan  and  Silas 
Wright,  at  the  same  time  changing  by  large  ma- 
jorities of  from  eighteen  to  twenty-five  votes  the 
chairmanships  of  all  but  four  of  the  other  eighteen 
committees  —  a  remarkable  political  upheaval,  pre- 
liminary not  only  to  the  passage  of  the  Expunging 
Resolutions,  but  also  to  the  new  dominance  of  im- 
portant and  far-reaching  policies  in  the  Senate.1 
Another  radical  reorganization  came  with  the  com- 
plete triumph  of  the  Whigs  in  1841,  when  Benton 
lost  the  chairmanship  of  the  Military  Affairs  which 
he  had  held  so  long. 

What  whispered  conferences,  what  fevered  bar- 
gainings,  may  have  filled  the  intervening  periods 
of  counting  ballots  for  committeemen  in  those  old 
days  when  the  Senate's  giants  touched  their  grand- 
est stature  !  To  get  at  the  outset  of  a  session  the 
humiliating  or  the  encouraging  estimate  of  one's 
peers,  mathematically  exact  —  that  was  the  fasci- 
nating game  !  But  the  ballot  was  constantly  get- 
ting less  satisfactory.  With  the -growth  of  the 
Senate,  and  the  increase  in  the  number  and  the  im- 
portance of  the  committees,  as  well  as  with  the 
adoption  of  the  plan  of  organizing  them  all  at  the 
same  time,  the  old,  slow  device  proved  irksomely 
tedious    and  time-wasting.2      Two  or  three  days 

i  24:2,  CD.,  Pt.  I.,  pp.  6,  7. 

2  19: 1,  C.  D.,  Vol.  II.,  Pt.  I.,  p.  525,  April  12,  1826,  remarks  of 
John  Randolph ;  23: 1,  C.  D.,  Vol.  X.,  Pt.  I.,  pp.  20-24,Dec.  9, 1833. 


278  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

were  often  required  for  the  work.  As  has  been 
said,  such  elections  were  subject  to  chance  and  to 
plurality  cliques.  They  were  often  influenced,  ac- 
cording to  one  who  participated  in  them,  by  the 
fact  that  certain  members  sat  near  to  each  other. 
The  secret  vote  was  too  independent  of  party  con- 
trol and  guidance.  Mr.  Chambers's  rule  of  1826, 
providing  for  distinct  ballots  and  majority  decis- 
ions as  to  the  chairmen,  may  have  afforded  some 
relief.  It  doubled  the  number  of  ballotings ;  but 
said  the  reporter  upon  the  first  occasion  of  its  use, 
"In  no  case  was  a  second  balloting  necessary." 
Influences  which  were  undermining  the  ballot  and 
working  towards  the  future  order  are  traceable 
from  the  very  beginning.1  Naturally  certain  Sen- 
ators would  scheme  and  intrigue  in  advance  of  the 
elections.  "  On  this  transaction  I  remark  —  first, 
the  singular  effects  of  the  spirit  of  party.  When 
the  New  York  memorial  was  presented,  Wright 
wanted  it  to  lie  over  till  the  next  day,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  the  committee  agreed  upon  out-of- 
doors,  by  the  party"  wrote  Senator  John  Quincy 
Adams  in  1806.2  Assignment  of  committee  places 
is  a  function  executive  or  judicial  in  character. 
As  such  the  experience  of  most  legislative  bodies 
has  determined  for  its  performance  by  a  few  men 

1  Ford's  ''Writings  of  Jefferson,"  VII.  132,  letter  to  Madison, 
June  1,  1797. 

2  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  384,  385. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   279 

or  by  one  man.     The  Senate's  devious  history  has 
not  been  exceptional. 

It  was  common  during  the  Presidency  of  Mon- 
roe for  some  Senatorial  leader  to  move  to  fix  for 
the  appointment  of  the  committees  a  day  and  an 
hour  somewhat  in  advance.  Later,  as  the  first 
week  of  a  session  was  drawing  to  a  close,  the  fol- 
lowing Monday  would  be  set.  This  gave  the 
weekly  holidays  for  consultation.  Difficulties  in- 
curred in  1819  while  making  these  previous  ar- 
rangements are  indicated  by  three  postponings  of 
the  ballot,  and  by  its  delay  until  ten  days  after  the 
beginning  of  the  session.1  Before  the  appointment 
in  1821,  John  H.  Eaton  of  Tennessee  testifies  his 
dissatisfaction  with  recent  events  by  moving  that 
a  select  committee  be  instructed  to  consider  the 
rules,  and  "  to  expunge  so  much  thereof  as  relates 
to  standing  committees."  The  rules  had  never 
prescribed  any  other  method  than  the  ballot  pre- 
vious to  1823.  That  year  Mr.  Eaton,  reenforced 
by  Andrew  Jackson  as  a  colleague,  courageously 
renewed  his  efforts  for  reform,  making  them  this 
time  constructive.  He  was  for  choosing  by  ballot 
the  chairmen  of  five  leading  committees,  and  vest- 
ing them  with  the  power  of  filling  all  of  the 
remaining  committee  positions.  The  Senate  con- 
sidered his  plan  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  but 
adopted  in  its  stead  James  Barbour's  simpler  prop- 

1  16:  1,  S.  J.,  7, 22,  26,  28,  2a 


280  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

osition  for  the  appointment  of  all  committees  by 
the  presiding  officer.1  Thenceforth  until  1845  the 
committees  were  named,  now  by  the  President  pro 
tempore,  now  by  the  Vice-President,  now  by  re- 
currence to  the  ballot,  now  by  a  combination  of 
methods.  None  of  these  were  satisfactory.2  We 
have  various  hints  that  the  "  spirit  of  party  "  was 
all  the  time  working  underneath  for  a  new  order. 
Against  return  to  the  ballot,  William  R.  King, 
with  fourteen  years  of  Senatorial  service  behind 
him,  urged  upon  one  occasion  that  "arrangements 
might  be  made  out-of-doors,  and  members  might 
be  influenced  for  the  moment  by  popular  individ- 
uals ;  "  against  appointment  by  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent, Willie  P.  Mangum,  also  a  veteran,  scented 
the  danger  of  his  being  "  dictated  to  by  members  of 
the  body  over  which  he  presided."  3  From  1836  to 
1845  these  two  able  statesmen,  with  Samual  R. 
Southard,  served  in  succession  as  Presidents  pro 
tempore,  and  by  unanimous  consent  uniformly  ap- 
pointed the  committees.  Probably  they  employed 
methods  in  making  up  the  lists  which  had  impor- 
tant formative  influence  for  the  later  practice. 

Whatever  precedents  they  may  have  set,  it  was 
reserved  for  the  Mexican  War  crisis  to  give  the 

i  18:  1,  S.  J.,  26-28,  Dec.  7-9,  1823. 

2  The  failure  of  the  presiding  officers  is  considered  below, 
Chapter  IX. 

8  23  : 1,  C.  D.,  Vol.  X.,  Pt.  I.,  p.  21,  Dec.  9,  1833;  29:  1,  C.  G., 
19,  20,  Dec.  4,  1845. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.    281 

plan  for  appointment,  and  to  shape  the  methods  of 
organization  as  nothing  before  or  since  has  done. 
The  records  of  the  Senate's  proceedings  npon  the 
opening  of  the  Twenty-ninth  Congress  mark  that 
distinct  step  which  put  the  selection  of  the  com- 
mittees into  the  charge  of  majority  and  minority 
caucuses.  For  some  time  previously  to  1845  party 
majorities  in  the  Senate  had  not  risen  beyond  half 
a  dozen  votes,  and  now  a  reversal  of  power  had 
brought  the  Democrats  into  control.  Decided 
agreement  between  the  two  sides  prevailed  for  the 
support  of  Polk's  policies  with  reference  to  Texas 
and  Mexico.  On  Thursday,  the  4th  of  Decem- 
ber, some  Democrats  joined  with  the  Whigs  to 
form  a  bare  majority  of  one  against  appointment 
of  the  committees  by  Vice-President  Dallas.  In 
the  debate  preceding  this  vote  frequent  references 
were  made  to  organization  of  the  majority  for  con- 
trol in  the  filling  out  of  the  committees.  Senator 
Mangum,  as  the  minority  leader,  spoke  of  "a  list 
made  out  and  decided  on  by  a  meeting  of  members 
of  this  body  belonging  to  a  particular  party."  Re- 
plying, Senator  Allen  denied  that  the  resolution 
for  appointment  by  the  Vice-President  had  ema- 
nated from  a  "  caucus  of  the  Democratic  members," 
but  Sidney  Breeze  undertook  to  justify  conditions 
which  would  make  that  officer  the  mere  agent  of 
the  majority  for  presenting  its  previously  arranged 
slate.     At  the  next  meeting,  on  Monday  four  days 


282  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

later,  the  balloting  for  committees  was  postponed, 
perhaps,  as  intimated  by  Senator  Crittenden,  with 
a  view  to  further  harmonizing  conferences  between 
the  party  managers.  On  Tuesday  and  Wednesday 
the  chairmen  were  elected  by  strict  party  votes, 
with  the  exception  of  William  Upham,  who  was 
unanimously  placed  at  the  head  of  the  Pensions. 
Party  spirit  and  comity  were  further  evidenced 
by  a  determination  of  majority  and  minority  rights 
as  to  second  and  third  places.  Vice-President 
Dallas  was  for  naming  lay  members  of  the  com- 
mittees in  order  from  the  one  receiving  most  to 
the  one  receiving  least  votes.  This  had  been  the 
early  usage.1  But  Senator  Sevier,  spokesman  of 
the  Democrats,  took  the  matter  in  hand  by  motions 
which  rearranged  the  names,  and  safeguarded 
the  majority's  succession  to  chairmanships  which 
should  become  vacant.  The  Whigs  were  playing 
for  delay ;  and  only  two  committees  had  been  filled 
out  by  the  third  Monday  of  the  session,  when  Sen- 
ator Cass  sprang  some  warlike  instructions  to  the 
Military,  Naval,  and  Militia  Committees.  Though 
these  were  not  yet  appointed,  the  Whigs  were 
whipped  by  a  two  days'  debate  into  a  unanimous 
vote  for  Mr.  Cass's  resolutions.  At  length,  on  the 
17th  of  December,  the  end  of  the  organization  of 
the  committees  was  reached ;  the  war  committees 

1  34: 1,  C.  G.,  22,  Dec.  13, 1855,  remarks  of  the  President  of  the 
Senate. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATION S.   283 

and  the  Commerce  were  named  by  ballot,  but  all 
the  rest — and  here  is  the  central  turning-point  in 
the  Senate's  practice  —  upon  unanimous  consent 
to  lists  presented  by  Senators  Jesse  Speight  and 
Ambrose  H.  Sevier. 

A  year  later,  Dec.  14,  1846,  in  the  same  Con- 
gress, when  the  annual  choice  of  committees  had 
proceeded  as  far  as  the  election  of  the  first  six 
chairmen,  the  following  colloquy  occurred  between 
Whig  and  Democrat :  — 

"  Mr.  Davis  (Massachusetts)  suggested  that,  if 
any  gentleman  upon  the  other  side  of  the  Chamber 
had  a  list  of  the  committees  as  they  had  been 
agreed  upon  by  the  majority,  it  might  by  common 
consent  be  read,  and  declared  to  be  a  list  of  the 
standing  committees  of  the  Senate,  which  would 
be  a  great  saving  of  time,  without  altering  the 
result  which  would  be  arrived  at  by  the  tedious 
process  of  balloting. 

"  Mr.  Sevier  (Arkansas)  observed  that  he  had  a 
list  of  the  committees  which  had  been  agreed  upon, 
not  only  on  his  side  of  the  Chamber,  but  upon 
the  other  also,  which  might  be  read  and  adopted 
by  common  consent. 

"  The  list  having  been  read,  — 

"Mr.  Mangum  (minority  leader)  then  moved 
that  the  list  of  committees  just  read  be  the  standing 
committees  of  the  Senate ;  which  was  also  agreed 
to." 


284  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

A  further  item  as  to  the  above  transactions  is 
attributed  to  Mr.  Sevier  at  the  next  appointment : 
"  According  to  the  arrangement  of  the  last  session, 
three  members  on  each  committee  had  been  elected 
on  his  side  of  the  Senate.  The  list  had  been 
handed  to  the  Senators  on  the  other  side,  and  they 
had  filled  it  up.  The  Naval  and  Military  com- 
mittees, which  had  been  increased  by  order  of  the 
Senate,  would  stand  five  to  two."  1 

Whigs  and  Democrats  were  congratulating  them- 
selves and  each  other  upon  having  now  at  last 
invented  arrangements  so  harmonious  and  so  expe- 
dite, but  a  fresh  difficulty  shortly  presented  itself. 
Upon  the  third  trial  of  this  caucus  method  a  new 
Senator  refused  to  affiliate  with  either  of  the  two 
parties,  and  declined  the  three  insignificant  com- 
mittee places  which  they  had  assigned  to  him.  It 
was  John  P.  Hale,  Freesoiler  and  solitary  pioneer 
of  the  Republican  Party  in  the  Senate.  Upon  the 
appointments  of  the  committees  at  the  two  follow- 
ing sessions  he  was  ignored.  At  the  outset  of  his 
second  Congress  he  availed  himself  of  his  most 
emphatic  protest,  the  breaking  of  unanimous  con- 
sent to  the  suspension  of  the  rules.  Salmon  P. 
Chase  and  himself,  as  constituting  the  caucus  of 
a  third  party,  had  not,  he  averred,  been  most  re- 
motely consulted  in  the  preparation  of  the  com- 

130:  1,  C.  G.,  19,  Dec.  13,  1847;  cf.  also  31:  1,  C.  G.,  39,  Dec. 
18,  1849,  remarks  of  Willie  P.  Manguin. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   285 

mittee  list.  His  movement  was  a  stumbling-block 
for  the  old-time  politicians.  With  some  beating 
about  the  bush,  they  fell  back  upon  the  tedious  but 
time-honored  ballot  rule,  first  for  the  chairmen, 
the  election  of  whom  occupied  that  day.  The 
recalcitrants  were  so  far  persuaded  by  the  next 
meeting  as  to  allow  all  of  the  committees  to  be 
named  by  mutual  agreement  save  three,  the  Judi- 
ciary, the  Territories,  and  the  District  of  Colum- 
bia, which  were  important  for  the  Freesoil  issue.1 
Four  years  later  these  independents  won  the  begin- 
nings of  recognition  upon  the  committees  tlirough 
sufferance  of  the  older  organization.  The  Demo- 
crats appointed  Chase  upon  the  safely  non-political 
committees,  the  Claims,  the  Roads  and  Canals,  and 
the  Patents ;  the  Whigs  ungraciously  left  vacant 
the  last  places  upon  the  Pensions  and  the  Enrolled 
Bills,  which  the  Democrats  filled  in  with  the  name 
of  Charles  Sumner.2  John  P.  Hale  again  ob- 
structed organization  of  the  committees,  Dec.  12, 
1855 ;  and  the  Senate  put  in  by  balloting  some 
of  the  abundant  leisure  incident  to  waiting  for 
the  end  of  one  of  the  celebrated  Speakership  wres- 
tlings of  the  House.3  The  Whig  Party  had  disap- 
peared from  the  Senate,  and  at  this  time  some  small 
recognition  was  again  given  to  the  men  of  new  poli- 

i  31:  1,C.G.,  39,44,  45. 

2  33:  1,  S.  J.,  31,  32;  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  13,  14,  1853. 

«  34:  1,  C.  G.,  17-20,  Dec.  12, 1855. 


286  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

tics.  Said  the  New  York  Times  :  "  The  commit- 
tee appointed  by  the  Democratic  caucus  of  the 
Senate  to  report  a  list  of  Senate  committees  to  be 
voted  for  by  the  body  have  concluded  that  the 
Republicans  and  Know  Nothings  are  'healthy 
organizations,'  sufficient  at  least  to  justify  their 
sharing  in  the  labors  of  the  committee  room." 

From  1855  until  1861  the  Republicans  were  not 
only  accorded  places,  but  some  right  of  naming 
their  representatives.  Without  forcing  the  ballot 
they  contented  themselves  with  demanding  the 
Yeas  and  Nays  upon  the  final  adoption  of  com- 
mittee lists.1  Their  sense  of  unfair  treatment  was 
also  proclaimed  in  their  speeches.  Lyman  Trum- 
bull asserted  that  his  party,  with  one-third  of  the 
Senate,  had  been  excluded  by  the  majority  utterly 
from  SQme  of  the  committees,  and  upon  others  had 
been  given  but  one  member  out  of  seven  ;  Hanni- 
bal Hamlin  figured  that  the  Republicans  had  re- 
ceived but  twenty-six  of  the  thirty-nine  committee 
places  to  which  they  were  entitled.2  In  1859  the 
Republican  side,  waxing  fat  and  kicking  more  lus- 
tily, was  disposed  to  show  discontent  by  refusing 
to  name  its  own  representatives.3  When  the  cau- 
cus plan  of  appointing  had  been  first  tried,  the  lists, 
as  has  been  shown,  were  presented  in  open  Senate 

1  34:  3,  S.  J.,  29,  30,  388,  389;  35: 1,  S.  J.,  39-41. 

2  34:3,  C.  G.,  384. 

«  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  19, 20, 1859. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   287 

by  a  minority  member,  as  if  to  witness  the  perfect 
accord  of  all  concerned.  In  such  spirit  William 
H.  Seward  and  Jesse  D.  Bright  later  performed 
the  same  office.1  This  custom,  however,  did  not 
survive  war  times. 

In  the  War  Congresses,  the  Southern  element 
being  absent  and  party  lines  being  somewhat  bro- 
ken, the  Republican  caucus  performed  the  entire 
function  of  committee  assignment.  Nevertheless, 
Senator  Saulsbury  entered  a  protest,  March  5, 
1863,  because  the  Democrats  had  had  no  voice  in 
the  selection  of  their  own  members,  and  was  fol- 
lowed in  the  same  strain  at  the  next  session  by  Sen- 
ator Powell.2  Answering  the  latter,  John  P.  Hale 
reviewed,  in  his  good-humored,  humorous  way,  his 
own  above  recounted  experiences;  and  Henry  B. 
Anthony,  Republican  caucus  spokesman,  admitted 
that  the  list  had  not  been  submitted  to  the  minority, 
but  insisted  upon  its  justice  and  liberality.  Before 
long,  however,  the  Democrats  regained  their  privi- 
leges. March  10, 1871,  John  Sherman  stated  with- 
out contradiction  that  they  had  received  at  the 
session  then  beginning  their  exact  quota  of  posi- 
tions, and  that  the  Republicans  had  not  changed 
a  single  assignment  which  they  had  made.8  The 
minority  was  getting  larger  —  twenty-nine  out  of 
seventy-six  Senators  —  when,  in  1875,  "great  dis- 

l  34:  3,  S.  J.,  388,  389.      2  37: 3>  c.  G.,  1554;  38: 1,  C.  G.,  15. 
»  42:1,  C.  G.,  50. 


288  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

satisfaction  was  expressed  that  the  majority  had 
left  only  two  places  on  the  Finance  Committee  for 
Democrats  to  fill,  instead  of  three  places  as  on  all 
the  other  important  committees  composed  of  nine 
members."  x 

As  usual  at  the  opening  of  a  Congress,  some 
sort  of  reorganization  was  necessary  in  1881 ;  but 
the  Senate  was  for  the  first  time  clearly  and  evenly 
divided  between  two  political  parties.  One  Repub- 
lican Senator  died,  and  three  others  were  drawn 
into  Garfield's  Cabinet.  David  Davis  and  William 
Mahone  further  complicated  matters  by  their  inde- 
pendent attitudes.  There  was  considerable  talk 
of  high-handed  proceedings  for  the  possession  of 
the  committees.  The  Democrats  brought  in  a  list 
in  the  preparation  of  which  the  Republicans  had 
had  no  part.  A  dramatic  debate  ensued.  By  plain 
intimations  of  a  resort  to  filibustering  the  Repub- 
licans secured  delay  until  the  vacant  seats  were 
filled.  With  the  help  of  the  Virginian  readjuster 
and  of  Vice-President  Arthur,  who  held  the  cast- 
ing vote,  they  then  carried  off  the  organization. 
Garfield's  death  withdrew  Arthur,  and  made  the 
situation  so  much  more  delicate  that  all  the  Repub- 
licans dared  do  for  two  years  was  to  move  for  the 
revival  and  continuance  of  old  lists,  with  filling 
of  vacancies  by  Mr.  Davis,  who  had  been  chosen 
President  pro  tempore.  The  Senate's  latest  history 
i  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  9, 1875. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   289 

has  been  marked  by  the  presence  of  a  larger  bal- 
ance-of-power  group,  the  Populists  and  the  Silver 
Republicans.  With  no  element  in  the  majority, 
the  plurality  has  by  common  consent  obtained  the 
chairmanships  and  accompanying  advantages.  To 
get  these,  it  has  had  to  be  very  careful  and  liberal 
in  its  gifts  to  the  third  party.  A  proposition  in 
the  Republican  caucus  of  1895  for  union  with  the 
Democrats,  to  the  ignoring  of  the  Populists,  in 
distributing  committee  positions,  by  contrast  with 
the  Whig-Democratic  agreement  of  the  '40's,  was 
opposed  vigorously  and  defeated.1  The  ratio  on 
committees  of  special  importance  for  present  issues 
has  been,  as  a  rule,  an  equal  membership  to  the 
two  large  parties,  and  one  representative  from  the 
third.  The  fact  that  its  determinations  finally  de- 
pend upon  unanimous  consent  makes  the  organiz- 
ing party  exceedingly  ready  to  hear  the  complaints 
and  grant  the  requests  of  the  others.2 

What  has  been  presented  in  detail  bears  witness 
to  what  was  prefaced  as  to  majority  and  minority 
rights.  Rarely  now  is  a  committee  chosen  by  bal- 
lot.3 Many  vacancies,  occurring  singly  as  sessions 
have  run  on,  have  been  filled  by  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent or  by  the  President  pro  tempore ;  but  even 


1  Washington  Post,  Dec.  3,  1895;  cf.  also  March  9,  1897,  p.  4, 
and  March  30,  1897,  p.  6. 

2  Washington  Post,  Dec.  19,  28,  1895. 

8  Cf.  S.  J.,  March  5,  1872,  for  an  instance  since  the  War. 


290  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

these  cases  seem  of  late  to  be  only  formal  an- 
nouncement of  caucus  decisions,  or  mere  recogni- 
tion of  binding  Senate  customs.  Forty  years  of 
trial  have  established  securely  and  completed  the 
plan  of  choosing  the  committees  by  party  caucuses. 
We  may  survey  from  a  distance  a  recent  "reor- 
ganization of  the  Senate."  A  new  Congress  is 
beginning.  At  the  preceding  session  the  Demo- 
crats were  in  control,  but  now  the  Republicans 
are  considering  whether  or  not  their  ranks  are 
sufficiently  recruited  to  capture  the  places  of 
power.  They  decide  in  the  affirmative.  They 
prepare  a  new  committee  list,  in  which  they  name 
all  of  the  chairmen  and  a  majority  of  each  com- 
mittee. Following  Democratic  example,  they  are 
careful  to  assign  to  the  Populists  and  Silver  Re- 
publicans such  tempting  balance-of-power  plums 
as  will  conciliate  them,  and  reconcile  them  to  the 
proposed  change.  The  slate  is  presented  to  the 
Democrats,  who,  in  the  minority  role,  have  been 
patiently  awaiting  events.  The  Democrats  are 
at  first  doubtful  what  course  to  pursue.  They 
are  not  sure  that  conditions  are  so  changed  as  no 
longer  to  guarantee  their  supremacy.  A  trial  of 
strength  upon  the  floor  of  the  Senate  may  be  ad- 
visable, say  in  the  election  of  a  President  pro  tem- 
pore. But  upon  further  reflection  they  take  up 
the  proffered  schedule,  and  begin  a  series  of  par- 
leys with  the  enemy.     *«  The  Senate  will  be  largely 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   291 

given  up  this  week  to  caucusing  by  all  parties,  and 
the  daily  sessions  will  likely  be  brief,"  observes 
at  this  stage  a  knowing  newspaper  correspon- 
dent. Granted  that  the  general  change  shall  be 
made,  the  Democrats  are  not  altogether  satisfied 
with  some  of  the  ratios  proposed.  They  send  cer- 
tain counter-propositions  in  written  form  to  the  Re- 
publicans. Meetings  of  representatives  from  the 
two  parties  follow.  When  all  disputed  points  are 
at  length  settled,  the  Democrats  retire  within  their 
own  quarters,  and  proceed  to  write  in  their  names 
upon  the  blanks  —  by  no  means  a  harmonious 
family  task  for  either  party.1  The  Republicans  are 
now  impatience  personified,  realizing  that  they  are 
at  the  mercy  of  Democratic  delay.  They  scold, 
and  threaten  to  refuse  to  adjourn  for  the  holidays 
until  the  completed  list  is  returned  to  them.  A 
House  resolution  for  adjournment  is  favorably  re- 
ported from  the  Senate  Appropriations  Committee 
to  which  it  has  been  referred,  and  which,  acciden- 
tally, has  a  Democratic  majority.  In  this  way  the 
subject  of  committee  organization  is  projected  upon 
the  floor  of  the  Senate.  There  the  Republicans 
are  scandalized  by  the  unprecedented  proposal  for 
laying  over  appointment  of  the  committees  until 
the  New  Year.  The  Democrats  declare  in  self- 
defense  that  they  are  expected  to  accomplish  in 

1  The  concluding  pages  of  Chapter  IX.  describe  this  internal 
procedure  of  the  party  caucuses. 


292  CONGBESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

three  days  a  task  for  which  the  Republicans  have 
taken  three  weeks.  The  Republicans  thoroughly 
sound  them  as  to  their  intentions.  They  play  a 
little  upon  the  suspense  of  the  would-be  organizers, 
but  at  length  give  out  that  they  may  be  ready  to 
report  the  day  before  Christmas.  Meanwhile  the 
President  of  the  United  States  also  finds  the  holi- 
day argument  available  in  a  message  urging  no 
recess  before  the  national  finances  are  relieved. 
The  House  retracts  its  proposal  to  adjourn.  Ac- 
cordingly the  Democratic  Senators  take  their  time, 
and  return  the  completed  list  to  the  Republicans 
on  the  28th  of  December.  The  next  to  the  last 
day  of  the  year  consummates  the  process.  Unan- 
imous consent  in  open  Senate  once  more  suspends 
the  ancient  ballot  rule.  The  leader  of  the  largest 
group  presents  the  list.  Democrats  demand  the 
Yeas  and  Nays,  and  Populists  will  not  vote.  A 
long  debate  follows,  by  which,  contrary  to  custom, 
the  relations  of  the  party  caucuses  are  a  second 
time  aired  for  a  candid  gallery  and  journalistic 
world.  Finally  a  cynic  voice  proclaims  the  reor- 
ganization an  accomplished  fact,  with  the  words : 
"  If  the  debating  society  is  over,  I  wish  to  move 
that  the  Senate  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
executive  business." 

A  phase  of  Senatorial  committee  development 
within  the  last  score  of  years  requires  notice.  Upon 
the  occasion  of  the  deadlock  in  1881  the  Democrats 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   293 

slated  the  Republicans  with  three  minor,  non-politi- 
cal chairmanships.  The  Republicans  of  that  Con- 
gress, in  their  successful  list,  gave  not  only  these 
three  positions  to  the  Democrats,  but  also  the  head- 
ships of  three  select  committees  and  one  joint  com- 
mittee, with  majorities  upon  all  of  the  seven.1 
There  were  then  forty-four  committees,  there  are 
now  (1898)  fifty-nine.  Thirteen  chairmen  are  now 
taken  from  the  minorities,  eleven  Democrats  and 
two  Populists.2  Upon  some  of  the  committees 
headed  by  Republicans  the  majorities  are  from  a 
minority  party ;  many  are  constituted  as  of  old  with 
Republican  majority  and  Democratic  minority ; 
some  are  made  up  wholly  of  Populists  and  Demo- 
crats ;  some  have  a  Republican  minority  thrust  into 
the  midst  of  Democrats  and  Populists.  The  key 
to  these  increased  privileges  of  the  minorities,  and 
to  this  enlargement  or  inflation  of  the  committee 
system  by  one-third,  is  the  demand  of  individual 
Senators  for  quarters  and  clerical  aid  at  public 
expense.  This  motive  was  avowed  by  Lyman 
Trumbull  twenty-five  years  ago.8  When  a  select 
committee  on  woman's  suffrage  was  created,  Dec. 
16,  1881,  Senators  Vest  and  Morrill  intimated 
that  the  covert  object  was  a  room  and  employees 

1  47  :  Special  Session,  Cong.  Directory,  3d  ed\,  pp.  81-85;  New 
York  Tribune,  March,  1881. 

2  54  : 1,  C.  R.,  424,  Dec.  30,  1895,  remarks  of  Senator  Gorman; 
Washington  Post,  Dec.  9,  1895. 

»  42  : 1,  C.  G.,  50,  March  10,  1871. 


294  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

for  a  Senatorial  lord  of  creation.1  "  What  these 
gentlemen  want,  to  come  down  to  the  real  facts 
of  the  case,"  said  Senator  Morgan,  "is  a  conven- 
ient body  servant,  a  man  who  will  wait  upon  them 
in  a  quiet  and  excellent  way.  It  is  not  for  the 
public  service,  it  is  for  private  service,  that  we  are 
voting  these  messengers,  and  for  the  accommo- 
dation of  a  few  gentlemen." 2  The  Senate  re- 
fused to  abolish  the  Committee  on  Revolutionary 
Claims  because  its  room  belonged  by  custom  to  the 
minority  caucus.3  In  1884  Senator  Vest  returned 
to  the  charge  against  uthe  sinecure  committees," 
affirming  that  there  were  six  which  had  "never  had 
a  bill  or  a  resolution  or  a  particle  of  business  before 
them." 4  At  that  time  the  Butler  House,  rented 
annually  for  from  twenty-five  to  thirty-five  thou- 
sand dollars,  was  being  used  avowedly  for  commit- 
tee meetings,  really  for  individual  accommodation, 
and  the  Maltby  House  is  now  similarly  employed. 
Said  the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Rules, 
William  P.  Frye,  "There  are  a  dozen  or  sixteen 
committees  of  the  Senate  that  can  be  dispensed  with 
just  as  well  as  not ;  and  if  each  Senator  has  a  clerk, 
the  necessity  for  those  committees,  if  ever  there  was 
any,  ceases  with  the  employment  of  that  clerk."5 
Plainly  here  are   Senatorial   usages  respecting 

i  47  : 1,  C.  R.,  144.      2  47  :  if  c.  R.,  5387,  July  27, 1882. 
a  48  :  1*0.  R.,  232,  Jan.  7,  1884. 
4  48  : 1,  C.  R.,  308,  Jan.  11,  1884. 
6  49  : 1,  C.  R.,  88,  March  31, 1885. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   295 

which  Vice-President  Jefferson,  as  he  compiled  his 
Manual,  was  silent.  These  admissions  show  that 
the  Senate  is  not  unlike  many  another  delegate 
body  in  that  fear  of  popular  punishment  which 
leads  to  indirection.  They  may  be  taken  at  their 
worth  as  measures  of  its  alleged  indifference  to 
public  opinion.  What  a  Websterian  fund  of  rhet- 
oric, logic,  imagination,  is  that  which  transforms 
the  Committee  to  Inquire  into  all  Claims  of  Citi- 
zens of  the  United  States  against  the  Government 
of  Nicaragua  into  the  Committee  on  the  Construc- 
tion of  the  Nicaragua  Canal,  the  Quadro-Centennial 
into  the  International  Expositions,  the  latter  half 
of  the  Agricultural  and  Forestry  into  the  Forest 
Reservations  in  California,  then  into  the  Forest 
Reservations,  then  into  the  Forest  Reservations  and 
the  Protection  of  Game  !  What  skill  of  leader- 
ship, surpassing  Henry  Clay's,  will  shortly  pilot 
them  into  the  standing  list,  and  cut  their  names  in 
twain,  when,  presto,  there  will  be  two  committees 
where  one  was  before !  Could  he  but  return  long 
enough  to  read  over  the  latest  annual  reports  of 
property  under  the  care  of  the  Sergeant>at^Arms,  — 
mostly  in  committee  rooms,  —  and  of  moneys  dis- 
bursed by  the  Secretary  from  that  Contingent  Fund 
which  covers  such  a  multitude  of  sins,  —  mostly 
committee  sins,  —  the  charge  of  luxurious  extrava- 
gance would  be  more  than  amply  sustained  in  the 
mind  of  any  one  of  those  out-of-date  Constitutional 


296  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Fathers  who  planned  the  upper  house  of  Congress. 
He  would  wonder  at  the  silk  gloves,  the  cork- 
screws, the  quinine  pills ;  he  Would  shake  his  head 
over  the  Turkish  rockers,  the  Smyrna  and  Ax- 
minster  rugs,  the  antique  oak  French  bevel  mir- 
rors. But  the  American  of  twentieth  century 
aspirations,  though  to-day  his  pockets  be  empty 
as  he  treads  Washington's  beautiful  public  halls, 
though  he  sees  reflected  in  their  golden  domes  the 
stintings  of  his  coffee  and  sugar,  rather  condones 
and  forgives  it  all  in  the  proud  sense  that  anything 
less  were  not  worthy  of  a  nation  so  rich  and  so 
grand  —  his  own  country. 

While  the  Senate  has  been  so  generous  toward 
itself,  what  care  for  the  interests  of  private  citi- 
zens has  its  committee  system  reflected  ?  From 
the  number  of  reports  presented  by  their  private 
bill  committees  the  two  branches  of  Congress  seem 
in  this  respect  to  be  about  equally  active.  The 
Senate's  rules  have  shown  discrimination  in  favor 
of  public  as  against  private  measures,  but  not  to 
nearly  so  marked  a  degree  as  those  of  the  House. 
The  tendency  is  noticeable  as  early  as  1833. 1  Fee- 
ble imitations  of  the  House  plan  of  making  Fridays 
and  Saturdays  private-bill  days  failed  in  ante  hel- 
ium times.2     The  more  loosely  organized  Senate 

i  22:2,  C.  D.,  359,  Feb.  6,  1833. 

2  23: 1,  S.  J-,  247,  256,  367,  June  28,  1834 ;  24: 1,  S.  J.,  379,  May 
24,  1836. 


ANTECEDENTS  AND  OUTWARD  RELATIONS.   297 

code  enables  private  measures  to  be  reached  upon 
its  calendar,  and  to  secure  consideration  upon  the 
demand  of  the  individual  member.  Petitions,  gen- 
erally of  an  unselfish  and  public-spirited  char- 
acter which  does  honor  to  American  citizenship, 
are  heard  as  of  old  in  open  Senate,  to  the  inspira- 
tion of  lofty  legislative  aims.  Time  is  not  pet- 
tily wasted  in  questioning  the  reports  of  claim 
and  pension  committees.  They  are  trusted  so  im- 
plicitly, and  their  bills  are  enacted  into  law  so  read- 
ily, that  the  onlooker  carries  away  an  impression 
of  rashness  and  carelessness.  To  such  and  worse 
charges  the  newspapers  have  given  sensational  cur- 
rency. The  Senators,  in  self-defense,  go  back  to 
the  committee  rooms,  and  claim  that,  in  these, 
courts  of  thirteen  men  each  pass  twice  upon  every 
private  measure  as  carefully  and  as  strictly  as 
would  regular  judicial  tribunals.1  They  recognize 
the  need  of  some  corrective  for  public  misappre- 
hension, but  do  not  suggest  for  the  committee 
meetings  that  publicity  which  attaches  to  the  pro- 
ceedings of  ordinary  courts.  The  Senate  appears 
more  able  and  more  willing  than  the  House  to 
bring  private  legislation  to  a  finality.  Senator 
Hoar,  contrasting  the  two,  charges  the  latter,  by 
admission  of  its  Speaker,  with  such  an  inability  to 
sift  private  measures  that  it  must  either  let  through 
more  of  the  evil  than  of  the  good,  or  let  through 

1  54: 1,  C.  R.,  2046,  2047,  Feb.  24,  1896. 


298  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

none  at  all.1  The  opportunities  and  the  induce- 
ments of  log-rolling  are  smaller  in  the  Senate. 
Because  of  those  same  conditions  which  have  en- 
abled it  in  respect  of  public  and  personal  expendi- 
tures to  be  much  more  regardless  of  restraining 
popular  sentiment,  it  has  shown  a  more  liberal  and 
often  a  juster  spirit  towards  private  citizens  with 
claims  against  the  government.  Though  it  has 
lent  a  too  willing  ear  to  the  business  barons,  its 
records  are  clearer  of  niggardliness  and  selfish  fa- 
voritism in  its  relations  with  that  multitude  of 
humbler  men  who  have  had  irons  in  the  Congres- 
sional fire. 

i  An  article  entitled  "Has  the  Senate  Degenerated?"    by- 
George  F.  Hoar,  The  Forum,  XXIII.  140. 


The  rule  of  the  Senate  has  been  its  own  sense  of  propriety  and 
dignity. 

Henry  B.  Anthony. 


I  am  not  much  of  a  stickler  anyway  regarding  the  jurisdiction 
of  the  committees;  they  are  but  auxiliary  to  the  business  of  this 
Senate. 

Horace  Chilton. 


Yet  I  stay  here  wrangling  vile  politics  in  a  contentious  Sen- 
ate, where  there  is  no  harmony  df  soul,  no  wish  to  communicate 
a  happy  sensation ;  where  all  is  snip-snap  and  contradictory;  in 
short,  where  it  is  a  source  of  joy  to  place  the  speech  of  a  fellow 
Senator  in  a  distorted  or  ridiculous  point  of  view. 

William  Maclay. 


300  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 


CHAPTER   IX. 

INTERIOR  ORGANIZATION. 

Absence  of  development  is  the  first  feature  to 
be  marked  in  a  history  of  Senatorial  legislative 
methods.  It  is  impressed  by  the  testimony  of 
Senators  themselves,  especially  of  New  England- 
ers,  from  John  Quincy  Adams  to  Henry  Cabot 
Lodge.  "  The  rules  of  the  Senate  are  practically 
unchanged  from  what  they  were  at  the  beginning," 
declares  the  latter.1  "Rules  are  never  observed 
in  this  body;  they  are  only  made  to  be  broken. 
We  are  a  law  unto  ourselves,"  commented  Presi- 
dent pro  tempore  Ingalls.2  Mutual  respect,  cour- 
tesy, forbearance,  kindness,  propriety,  dignity, 
sedateness,  character,  reputation,  honorable  obli- 
gation, high  responsibility  as  gentlemen  and  Sen- 
ators, —  these  are  the  graces  that  keep  the  Senate's 
peace.  Fixed  and  arbitrary  law  is  for  law-breaking 
assemblies.  Tyro  legislators  need  a  Yankee  school- 
master, but  Senatorial  maturity  revels  in  a  gradu- 
ate seminary.  When  his  attention  was  called  to 
the  plurality  provision  for  choice  of  the  committees, 

1  North  American  Review,  157:526.  Cf.  also  editorial  in  the 
Washington  Post,  March  8, 1897.       2  44 : 2,  C.  R.,  266,  Dec.  18, 1876. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  301 

a  chairman  of  the  Senate's  Committee  on  Rules 
exclaimed:  "I  had  no  idea  such  a  rule  was  in 
existence !  "  Contrast  his  lack  of  familiarity  with 
the  sharp  and  exact  parliamentary  knowledge  of 
every  House  leader.  New  Senators  who  have 
served  in  other  legislative  bodies  are  puzzled,  and 
now  and  then  overleap  themselves  in  an  amusing 
way,  because  of  the  simplicity  and  insignificance 
of  the  Senate's  code.  No  occasion  there  for  mid- 
night poring  over  the  manual  and  digest,  or  des- 
perate outcry  against  a  complicated  procedure. 

The  nineteen  brief  regulations  of  1789  upon 
which  the  Senate  founded  its  system  were  sim- 
plicity itself.  They  had  but  one  or  two  references 
to  committees,  and  no  prescription  of  an  order  of 
business  save  that  the  legislative  day  was  to  begin 
with  reading  of  the  journal.  Seventeen  years 
passed  before  the  Senate  bethought  itself  of  a  re- 
vision. Then  Jeffersonian  ideas  of  a  return  to  first 
principles  prevailed.  Almost  as  long  a  time  inter- 
vened before  the  third  general  remodeling,  and 
succeeding  attempts  have  likewise  been  few,  fee- 
ble, far  between.  The  Senate  has  never  adopted 
the  excellent  House  practices  of  appending  the 
rules  to  each  journal,  and  of  annually  collating 
into  a  manual  its  procedure  and  precedents.1     It 

1  In  1789  William  Maclay,  with  Keystone  example  in  mind, 
proposed  that  the  Senate's  rules  he  engrossed,  and  hung  up  con- 
spicuously in  the  Chamber,  with  facilities  for  attaching  to  them 
the  names  of  Senators  guilty  from  time  to  time  of  misbehavior! 


302  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

prefers  oral  tradition  and  custom  to  the  nice  mod- 
ern print.  Its  standing  Committee  on  Rules,  be- 
yond looking  after  janitors  and  the  restaurant,  is 
a  nonentity;  it  is,  to  repeat  a  favorite  figure  of 
radical  Congressmen,  little  more  than  a  graveyard 
for  proposed  parliamentary  reforms. 

Some  idea  of  legislative  methods  in  the  House 
of  Representatives  when  Washington  was  Presi- 
dent may  be  found  ready  at  hand  by  looking  down 
from  the  Senate's  galleries  to-day.  That  strong 
framework  which  the  House  has  reared  is  wanting, 
—  the  previous  question  and  the  hour  rule  for 
regulating  time,  the  three  calendars  and  the  two 
committees  of  the  whole  for  classifying  business, 
the  one  supreme  committee  for  selection.  Each 
committee  can  report  in  its  alphabetical  turn. 
Bills  rank  upon  the  solitary  calendar  simply  ac- 
cording to  the  times  of  their  introduction.1  Stress 
is  laid  upon  the  order  of  precedence  among  mo- 
tions, and  special  orders  are  limited  by  the  two- 
thirds  device.  The  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  State  of  the  Union  figures  with  its  ancient 
character.  "  Half  our  business  is  done  by  unan- 
imous consent,"  is  about  as  true  now  as  in  the 
day  of  Lyman  Trumbull.2  According  to  Senator 
Piatt  there  are  but  two  ways  of  getting  a  vote : 

i  54:2,  C.  R.,  1607,  1608,  remarks  of  Senators  Hale,  Tillman, 
et  al. 

2  42: 1,  C.  G.,  49,  March  10,  1871  ;  Washington  Post,  April  11, 
1897,  article  on  the  Previous  Question  by  Senator  R.  Q.  Mills. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  303 

by  unanimous  consent  to  fix  a  time  for  action ; 
by  "  sitting  it  out."  1 

Some  weary  night,  like  that  historic  one  of  the 
House  in  1811,  the  Senate  may  "  sit  in  "  the  pre- 
vious question.  In  its  ancient  form  this  rule  was 
included  in  the  first  code,  but  it  rested  uneasily 
upon  the  necks  of  the  Fathers.  Jefferson,  while 
President  of  the  Senate,  described  and  sympa- 
thized with  a  ruse  for  its  avoidance.2  He  later 
refused  to  apply  it  to  amendments.  His  succes- 
sor, Burr,  inveighed  against  it  in  that  remarkable 
farewell  speech  which  prophesied  the  Constitu- 
tion's dying  agonies  for  the  Senate's  floor.3  Burr's 
suggestion  for  its  discardure  was  adopted  in  1806.4 
The  previous  question  in  the  modern  sense,  how- 
ever, has  found  no  entrance  to  the  Senate,  though 
the  list  of  attempts  therefor  is  impressive.  Ben- 
ton and  his  coadjutors  heaped  unmeasured  denun- 
ciation upon  Clay's  threat  to  apply  House  methods 
of  limiting  debate.5  Stephen  A.  Douglas  was  foij 
the  cloture  in  its  most  unlimited  form,  and  would 
not  be  satisfied  with  a  rule  advanced  by  Senator 
Underwood  for  laying  an  amendment  on  the  table 

i  53:1,  C.  R.,  1636;  Washington  Post,  April  11,  1897,  R.  Q. 
Mills. 

2  Ford's  "  Writings  of  Jefferson,"  VII.  224. 

3  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  365,  Mar.  2,  1805. 

4  9: 1,  C.  A.,  201,  Mar.  26, 1806 ;  51 : 2,  C.  R.,  1687,  Jan.  22, 1891, 
Senator  Harris's  assertion  that  it  had  been  used  hut  four  times. 

6  Roosevelt's  "  Life  of  Benton,"  250-252;  27 : 1,  C.  G.,  411,  Aug. 
31,  1841;  51:2,  C.  R.,  1687. 


304  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

without  prejudice  to  the  original  measure.1  Like- 
wise have  fallen  short  a  score  of  other  efforts  by 
such  statesmen  as  Hale,  Pomeroy,  Hamlin,  Wilson, 
Wright,  Blair,  Hoar,  Hill,  Vest,  and  Mason.  The 
most  ndtable  of  later  attempts  are  those  of  1891 
upon  consideration  of  the  so-called  Force  Bill, 
and  of  1893  upon  the  Repeal  of  the  Silver  Pur- 
chase Act.2  Distribution  of  the  appropriation  bills 
among  the  committees  has  been  agitated  with  the 
same  unsuccessful  outcome.3 

The  main  reasons  for  this  unvarying  unwilling- 
ness to  organize  along  stronger  lines  lie  in  those 
outward  social  forces  which,  as  has  been  set  forth, 
originated  the  Senate,  and  have  never  surrendered 
their  influence.  What  a  bulwark  for  the  minority 
has  been  Mr.  Jefferson's  opening  quotation  of  On- 
slow in  his  Manual !  How  far  and  how  long  has 
it  thrown  the  shadows  of  kings  across  the  sea ! 
How  often  have  its  venerable  cadences  silenced 
the  innovator  of  the  Senate !  Rules,  it  decrees, 
must  be  conservative,  not  creative ;  defensive  weap- 

i  31: 1,  C.  G.,  1688-1690,  Aug.  28,  1850. 

2  For  review  of  the  movement,  cf .  speech  of  Senator  Harris, 
51 :  2,  C.  R.,  1669, 1670,  Jan.  22, 1891 ;  also  52 : 2,  Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol. 
VII.,  pp.  217-230.  Senator  Mills  argues  for  introduction  of  the 
previous  question,  Washington  Post,  April  11,  1897. 

8  Cf.  distribution  in  the  House,  above,  pp.  181-186.  For  cases 
of  agitation  in  the  Senate  consult  46: 1,  S.  J.,  57,  58,  April  1,  1879; 
48: 1,  C.  R.,  204-210,  266-276,  342,  343,  Dec.  20,  1883,  Jan.  8,  1884; 
54: 1,  C.  R.,  1412-1426, 1458-1471, 1522-1538, 1575-1578,  Dec.  11, 1895, 
Feb.  4,  1896  et  seq.;  54:  2,  C.  R.,  Feb.  27,  1897,  remarks  of  Senator 
Dubois. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  305 

ons  of  the  lesser  parties,  not  tools  of  the  respon- 
sible majority  ;  watchful  of  justice  and  individual 
liberty,  rather  than  promotive  of  a  more  effectual 
legislative  order.  By  the  Senate  the  Constitu- 
tion makers  intended  to  secure  the  wisdom  of 
elders  sitting  continuously  as  a  council  of  revis- 
ion. The  upper  chamber  was  not  to  be  as  active 
as  the  lower  in  initiating  laws ;  and  for  a  long 
time  it  continued  truer  to  the  conception  than  it 
is  now.  Professor  Woodrow  Wilson  observes  that 
this  purpose  is  promoted  by  "  simple,  compara- 
tively unencumbered  forms  of  procedure."1  The 
large  element  of  new  and  unacquainted  member- 
ship, instanced  as  partly  responsible  for  the  cen- 
tralizing tendency  in  the  House,  cannot  possibly 
figure  in  the  Senate  ;  nor  has  necessity  brought 
the  subject  of  rules  to  notice  with  biennial  regu- 
larity. The  average  age  of  Senators  is  sixty;  in 
1890  the  youngest  was  fifteen  years  above  the 
Constitutional  minimum.2  In  no  legislative  body 
of  the  world  do  the  older  members  govern  more 
supremely,  and  the  conservatism  of  old  age  is 
tritely  proverbial.  They  are  upon  the  inside  of 
the  Rules  Committee's  room,  braced  against  the 
doors ;   and  only  death  carries  them  away. 


1  Cf.  also  Henry  Litchfield  West,  in  Washington  Post,  Mar.  14, 
1897,  p.  6. 

2  George  F.  Hoar  in  Youth's  Companion,  Nov.  13,  1890,  re- 
printed in  51:2,  C.  R.,  1680. 


306  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

The  House  has  shown  a  rapid  and  constant 
passage  of  legislation  from  the  floor  into  the  com- 
mittee room.  By  1825,  it  will  be  remembered, 
the  larger  part  of  the  work  of  law  construction 
had  come  within  the  latter  field.  This  process 
has  dragged  in  the  upper  branch.  Clear  ideas  of 
the  exact  status  are  to  be  had  by  considering  and 
comparing  the  spheres  of  the  Senate  in  its  entirety, 
—  the  majority,  the  minority,  the  caucus,  the  com- 
mittee, the  individual.  The  large  power  of  in- 
dividuals and  minorities  is  a  striking  corollary  of 
slow  parliamentary  advance.  As  between  the  in- 
dividual and  the  committee,  in  the  Senate,  the 
evidence  goes  to  support  the  former  as  the  real 
legislative  unit.  Dr.  von  Hoist  would  inscribe 
over  the  entrance  to  its  chamber  Benton's  often 
repeated  phrase:  "Proud  as  a  Roman  Senator." 
In  the  House  one  sees  different  grades  and  types  of 
members,  —  the  member  who  is  going  somewhere, 
and  the  member  who  does  not  know  whither  he  is 
going ;  the  member  who  is  pushing  his  hair  back 
from  a  brain-heated  forehead,  and  the  member  who 
is  too  lazy  to  stand  or  to  sit  upright.  The  busy 
member  does  not  know  that  the  lazy  member 
exists^  and  the  lazy  member's  dreamy  eyes  are  too 
far  above  the  gallery  rims  to  perceive  the  busy  mem- 
ber. But  in  the  Senate  every  man  stands  upon 
his  feet,  alert;  watchful  of  the  comings  and  go- 
ings of  his  fellows  ;  according  to  temperament,  pee- 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION. 


307 


vish,  irascible,  inquisitive,  calculating,  smoothly 
smiling  or  serenely  self-poised.  Upon  a  first  view 
of  our  Senate,  most  visitors  feel  away  down  in 
their  hearts  some  stirring  of  that  awe  which  over- 
took the  untutored  Gaul  when  he  burst  into  its 
august  Roman  prototype.  Nevertheless,  an  irrev- 
erent child  of  latter-day  democracy  now  and  then 
whispers,  "  bear-garden." 

Senators  are  diplomats  in  securing  election. 
Diplomacy  is  one  of  their  Constitutional  functions. 
They  are  diplomats,  in  some  sense,  as  are  mem- 
bers of  the  German  Bundesrath.  Whereas  in  the 
House  three  hundred  and  fifty-seven  comparatively 
small  and  equal  areas  fret  against  each  other,  in 
the  Senate,  embracing  the  same  vast  territory, 
there  are  but  forty-five  of  the  most  abrupt  variety 
in  sizes  and  conditions.  What  is  there  in  common 
physically  between  Maine  and  Texas,  the  one  in 
its  unity,  the  other  in  its  entirety  ?  Senators  often 
demonstrate  the  weakness  of  the  bonds  which 
unite  them  into  committees.  Sometimes,  in  their 
large  independence  one  of  another,  they  even 
make  war  upon  caucus  determinations,  revealing 
family  secrets  to  the  enemy  in  open  Senate.  The 
disratings  of  Sumner  and  Douglas  from  their 
chairmanships  by  their  compeers  roused  Achillean 
wrath.  Party  lines  and  caucus  schemes  of  "  con- 
ciliation and  compromise  "  quickly  went  to  pieces 
over  the  repeal  of  the  Silver  Purchase  Act  because 


308  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

one  Senator  flew  the  track.  Publicists  generally 
note  for  the  Senate  the  absence  of  such  sharp 
and  prolonged  wrangles  over  parliamentary  ques- 
tions as  have  been  common  in  the  House.  Sena- 
tors are  rather  given,  as  they  themselves  state  it, 
to  "scolding,"  to  "  reading  lectures  "  one  to  another. 
Parliamentary  tricks  are  not  required  as  brakes 
upon  legislation  ;  they  do  serve  sometimes  to  accel- 
erate its  movement.  The  Senate's  smaller  number 
has  made  each  voice  and  vote  correspondingly  more 
valuable.  Therefore  the  absence  of  a  particular 
member  lias  more  than  once  brought  the  looked- 
for  opportunity  of  putting  a  measure  through. 
In  his  vivid  personal  gallery,  Maclay  draws  the 
sarcastic  picture  of  a  Senator  brought  in  with  his 
bed  and  with  night-cap  on,  in  order  that  Congress 
might  be  prevented  from  moving  to  Philadelphia.1 
Jefferson  emphasizes  the  importance  of  the  absentee 
for  the  passage  of  those  great  measures  which  en- 
gaged the  earlier  Congresses.2  Just  a  century 
later  Mr.  Hill  charges  that  advantage  is  artfully 
taken  of  his  withdrawal  from  the  chamber  to  refer 
a  bill  prohibiting  the  use  of  alcoholic  liquors  in 
the  Capitol  to  a  committee  constituted  dangerously 
favorable  for  reporting  it  back.3 

1  "  Maclay's  Journal,"  285;  cf.  also  pp.  145,  169  et  al. 

2  Ford's  "Writings  of  Jefferson,"  VII.  132,  133,  letter  of  June 
1,  1797. 

s  54:  2,  C.  R.,  1512,  Feb.  4,  1897;  cf.  also  the  Du  Pont  incident 
mentioned  below,  p.  311, 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  309 

So  much  for  the  general  importance  of  the  indi- 
vidual Senator.  What  advantage  has  he,  or  has  a 
minority,  when  pitted  against  a  committee?  The 
distortion  of  the  committee  system  for  personal 
and  minority  convenience  merely  material  has  been 
described.1  Bills  may  be  presented  by  Senators, 
and  placed  upon  the  calendar  without  any  refer- 
ence whatever,  and  are  there  on  a  footing  of  ab- 
solute equality  with  committee  measures.2  The 
power  of  the  individual  is  evidenced  by  those  fa- 
vorable reports  obtained  from  committees  by  what 
Senator  Vest  styles,  "the  reprehensible  practice 
of  polling  members  on  the  floor."  A  project  for 
a  new  rule,  introduced  and  reintroduced  by  the 
Senator  from  Missouri,  explains  itself,  and  is  here 
in  point :  "  Resolved,  That  no  report  shall  be  re- 
ceived by  the  Senate  from  any  standing  or  select 
committee  unless  such  report  has  been  considered 
by  said  committee  at  a  session  attended  by  a  quo- 
rum of  its  members."3  In  the  two  privileges  of 
unlimited  debate  and  unlimited  amendment  the 
individual  or  a  minority  can  absolutely  overawe 
the  committee.  Amendment,  according  to  Sen- 
ator Hoar,  is  "perhaps  more  important  even  than 
free  debate."  "  A  long  speech,  wandering  off  from 
the  bill,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  a  short 
amendment,  directed  to  the  texture   of   the  bill 

1  Above  pp.  292-296.      2  54 : 1,  C.  R.,  424,  Dec.  30,  1895. 
3  C.  R.,  Feb.  26,  1897,  March  16,  1897. 


310  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

itself,  and  intended  to  increase  its  beneficial,  or  to 
diminish  its  prejudicial  action,"  said  Thomas  H. 
Benton.  The  great  strength  which  the  small 
minority,  or  even  a  single  Senator,  obtains  by 
combining  the  two,  has  been  demonstrated  by 
amendments  of  appropriation  bills  against  the  will 
of  two-thirds  of  the  Senate.1  Long  before  an  ap- 
propriation bill  comes  from  the  House,  the  Sena- 
tors begin  to  send  amendments  to  the  committee 
which  has  jurisdiction  over  the  particular  subject; 
e.g.,  to  the  Naval  Affairs  in  case  of  the  Naval  Ap- 
propriation Bill.  These  are  reported  back,  and  re- 
committed to  the  Appropriations.  Having  passed 
through  this  regular  process  of  double  considera- 
tion, each  is  ready  to  be  called  up  without  gain- 
say by  the  original  introducer.  The  weakness  of 
the  committee  under  such  conditions  is  manifest. 
Upon  the  floor  its  chairman  is  a  nervous,  deferen- 
tial, conciliatory  body.  In  him  is  wanting  the  so 
often  quickly  displayed  irritation  of  the  House 
chieftain  when  interrupted  by  attacks  or  inquiries 
of  other  members.  He  is  the  victim  of  "parlia- 
mentary blackmail."  He  sits  silent,  afraid  to  dis- 
cuss or  to  defend  his  measures,  lest  the  opposition 
be  aroused  to  an  eternity  of  talk.  Committees 
make  themselves  felt,  however,  in  a  negative  way ; 
that  is,  they  bury  bills.  The  doubt  which  im- 
pends as  to  the  fate  of  a  resolution  is  often  appar- 

i  42:  2,  C.  G.,  2874,  April  29,  1872,  Senator  Sherman. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  311 

ent  in  the  explanatory  remarks  and  appeals  to 
public  opinion  with  which  a  Senator  accompanies 
its  introduction,  and  in  his  efforts  to  secure  from 
the  chairman  outspoken  promises  to  report  it  one 
way  or  another,  or  to  have  the  committee  positively 
so  instructed  by  vote  of  the  Senate.  Even  this 
negative  power  is  offset  by  the  large  rights  of  a 
committee's  minority,  which  can  report  its  views 
directly  to  the  Senate  and  have  them  printed  with- 
out intervention  of  the  chairman.  A  successful 
surprise  was  sprung  upon  the  majority  in  connec- 
tion with  the  Du  Pont  contested  election  case. 
Two  majority  Senators  were  absent  and  unpaired. 
A  minority  member  of  the  Committee  on  Privi- 
leges and  Elections,  without  consulting  its  chief, 
moved  that  the  Senate  take  up  the  subject  im- 
mediately, and  carried  the  day  against  vigorous 
objection.1 

Due  emphasis  having  been  given  to  what  the 
Senate  has  not  done,  it  is  now  meet  to  trace  the 
parliamentary  progress  which  it  has  made.  To 
say  that  none  has  been  shown  is  altogether  too 
broad  a  statement.  Compared  with  the  present 
moment,  there  has  never  been  a  time  in  its  history 
when  changes  more  numerous  or  more  important 
were  being  agitated.2     The  same  general  causes 

i  54: 1,  C.  R.,  4768-4772,  May  4,  1896. 

2  Editorial  on  the  Rules  of  the  Senate,  Washington  Post,  Mar. 
7,  1897, 


312  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

noted  for  the  House  advance  have  operated,  though 
in  a  less  degree,  for  the  Senate.  They  have 
brought  it  to  the  stage  of  those  devices  already 
named  and  described  as  characteristic  of  its  pres- 
ent rules  and  customs.1 

Its  membership  has  increased  from  twenty-six 
to  ninety.  If  its  entire  history  be  divided  into 
decades,  four  stand  out  conspicuous  for  marked 
growth.  Twelve  Senators  were  added  from  1810 
to  1820  ;  ten,  from  1840  to  1850  ;  eight,  from  1860 
to  1870  ;  twelve,  from  1880  to  1890.2  Quickened 
parliamentary  development  has  distinguished  each 
of  these  four  periods.  In  1810-1820  the  standing 
committee  plan  was  adopted,  and  the  old  method  of 
choosing  committees  by  ballot  broke  down.  In 
1840-1850  the  device  of  filling  committee  lists  by 
majority  and  minority  caucuses  came  into  vogue, 
and  special  orders  received  their  first  regulation. 
This  decade  having  enlarged  the  Senate  to  more 

1  Above,  p.  302. 

Number  of  Number  of               Increase  of 

8  Year-                   States.  Senators.                  Senators. 

1790  ....      13 26 0 

1800  ....      16 32 6 

1810  ....      17 34 2 

1820  ....      23 46 12 

1830  ....      24 48 2 

1840  ....      26 52 4 

1850  ....     31 62 10 

1860  ....      33 66 4 

1870  ....      37 74 8 

1880  ....      38 76 2 

1890  ....      44 88 12 

1898  ....     45 90 2 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  313 

than  sixty  members,  the  committees,  which  until 
1853  consisted  uniformly  of  five  or  three  Senators, 
were  enlarged  to  seven  or  five.  In  1860-1870 
the  Appropriations  Committee  was  created ;  the 
treatment  of  its  bills  was  carefully  prescribed,  and 
custom  speedily  gave  them  precedence.  Special 
orders  were  put  under  a  two-thirds  requirement. 
With  the  close  of  the  decade,  debate  limitations 
were  applied  to  amendments  upon  appropriation 
bills,  and  to  proceedings  upon  the  calendar  under 
the  Anthony  Rule.  Certain  committees  were  in- 
creased in  membership  in  1873  from  seven  to  nine, 
and  a  new  one  was  added  with  eleven.  The  aug- 
mentation of  the  fourth  period,  1880-1890,  has 
been  followed  and  marked  by  incessant  public 
discussion  and  dissatisfaction  with  the  Senate's 
methods,  and  by  many  attempts  to  introduce  and 
apply  the  previous  question.  Uniformity  in  the 
size  of  the  committees  has  almost  disappeared; 
they  now  range  through  all  the  scale  of  odd  num- 
bers up  to  fifteen. 

The  onward  sweep  of  changing  national  life  and 
the  great  central  phenomena  of  the  Civil  War 
have  played  their  parts  also.  Original  legislation 
on  the  part  of  the  Senate  in  1841-1843  is  indi- 
cated by  the  presentation  of  five  hundred  and  four 
bills.  Many  of  these,  however,  were  but  reintro- 
ductions  at  the  second  and  third  sessions.  Com- 
parison with  the  House  is  best  made  by  figures 


314  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

for  the  second  session,  at  which  Senators  brought 
in  three  hundred  and  thirty-seven  bills,  and  Repre- 
sentatives five  hundred  and  ninety-four.  In  1861- 
1863  Senators  introduced  seven  hundred  and  fif- 
teen, Representatives  nine  hundred  and  fifty-one ; 
in  1881-1883,  Senators  two  thousand,  six  hundred 
and  fifty-two,  Representatives  eight  thousand  and 
fifty-two;  in  1895-1897,  Senators  three  thousand, 
nine  hundred  and  forty-five,  Representatives  ten 
thousand,  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine.  Thus  half 
a  century  has  seen  the  Senate's  activity  in  this 
respect  grow  to  more  than  tenfold. 

Other  general  features  of  the  development  may 
be  succinctly  stated.  The  progress,  like  that  of  the 
House,  has  been  away  from  the  foreign  parliament- 
ary law  with  which  a  beginning  was  made.  By  a 
growth  of  custom  as  well  as  by  the  adoption  of 
new  rules  the  Senate  has  been  gradually  adapting 
itself  to  its  environment.  A  marked  characteristic 
of  the  regulations  added  from  time  to  time  has 
been  the  large  attention  which  they  have  given, 
not  to  the  committee,  but  to  the  individual.  The 
key-word  of  the  first  rules  is  "member;"  of  the 
latest,  "  Senator."  A  large  block  of  methods  deal- 
ing with  impeachments,  treaties,  and  nominations 
forms  part  of  the  code.  The  Senate's  Executive 
functions  give  a  greater  importance  of  a  particular 
kind  to  certain  committees  than  the  corresponding 
committees  of  the  House  enjoy.    Nominations,  for 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  315 

instance,  are  referred  in  great  numbers  to  the 
Foreign  Relations,  the  Indian  Affairs,  the  Post- 
Offices  and  Post-Roads,  and  the  Judiciary.  The 
House  and  the  Executive  having  both  passed 
through  a  much  more  rapid  evolution  than  the 
Senate,  their  influence,  the  one  on  each  side,  in 
pulling  and  tugging  it  along,  as  it  were,  is  note- 
worthy. This  influence  has  given  an  artificial  cast 
to  the  Senate's  changes.  House  example  was 
partly  responsible  in  1816  for  the  Senate's  crea- 
tion of  eleven  standing  committees  at  a  stroke, 
and  the  occasion  for  raising  such  a  number  at  one 
time  was  an  analysis  of  the  President's  Message. 
The  strong  force  of  House  analogy  has  been  felt 
and  feared  by  those  Senators  who  have  opposed 
the  previous  question  and  the  distribution  of  the 
appropriation  bills.  An  increasing  flood  of  par- 
tially enacted  laws  has  poured  in  from  the  House 
for  Senate  action ;  an  increasing  flood  of  nomina- 
tions has  poured  in  from  the  President  for  confir- 
mation or  rejection.  The  impression  seems  to  be 
abroad  that  the  Senate  has  grasped  to  itself  a  share 
in  lawmaking  which  it  ought  not  to  have.  That 
this  is  incorrect  the  above  data  for  the  introduc- 
tion of  bills  go  towards  showing.  Business  has 
rather  been  forced  upon  it.  If  the  Senate  had 
even  kept  up  its  proportion,  the  number  of  its  bills 
would  now  be  twice  as  large  as  it  is.  If  appro- 
priation  and  tariff  bills  are  amended  more  than 


316  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

formerly,  their  changed  character  and  enlarged 
importance,  as  well  as  the  increasing  inability  of 
the  House  to  perform  the  function,  must  justify 
the  Senate's  greater  interference. 

In  connection  with  these  bills  have  come  the 
most  important  limitations  upon  debate  and  amend- 
ment, the  vital  part  of  the  process  by  which  the 
Senate  has  reached  its  present  order  and  methods 
of  business.  The  central  transition  period  from 
the  old  to  the  new  began  with  1870,  and  was 
completed  upon  the  codification  of  the  rules  in 
1884.  Since  1884  the  rules  have  been  modified 
in  but  two  cases  that  have  even  approached  im- 
portance.1 

What,  in  the  first  place,  was  the  progress  that 
had  been  made  by  1870  ?  Under  the  earliest  rules 
debaters  were  restricted  to  two  speeches  upon  the 
same  subject  in  any  one  day.2  The  narrowing  pro- 
cess began  with  prohibitions  of  debate  upon  sec- 
ondary and  subsidiary  motions.  For  example,  in 
1820  Senator  Burrill  proposed  to  make  the  motion 
to  lay  on  the  table  undebatable.  Such  require- 
ments of  decision  "  without  debate  "  are  now  a  no- 
ticeable feature  of  the  Senate's  code.  The  most 
general  are  those  secured  by  the  late  Senator  Har- 
ris, which  make  undebatable  almost  all  motions  to 

i  49: 1,  S.  J.,  945,  June  21,  1886;  50: 1  S.  J.,  427,  428,  March  7, 
1888. 

2  An  instance  of  the  enforcement  of  this  rule  is  given  in  J.  Q. 
Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  323,  324. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  317 

depart  from  the  order  of  proceedings  laid  down  in 
the  rules.1  Time  was  ample  enough  at  first  for  the 
consideration  of  all  measures  introduced.  Senator 
John  Quincy  Adams  complained  of  "  the  continued 
state  of  nihility,"  and  noted  occasions  when  the 
Senate,  having  dispatched  what  business  had  come 
up  from  the  House,  adjourned  pending  the  arrival 
of  more.  An  important  bill  would  be  set  for  a 
certain  day  and  hour  in  advance,  doubtless  to  give 
the  orators  time  and  notice  to  prepare.  Early  in 
the  century  the  custom  of  confining  these  special 
orders  to  the  latter  part  of  each  day's  session  arose. 
Revisions  of  1820  and  1828  gave  precedence  to  the 
unfinished  business  coming  over  from  one  day  to  an- 
other. A  rule  proposed  by  Benjamin  Ruggles  in 
1828,  and  evidently  based  upon  the  then  prevailing 
practice,  prescribed  as  the  daily  order  of  business : 
1,  Resolutions  of  State  legislatures,  petitions,  and 
memorials ;  2,  Reports  of  committees,  and  bills  in- 
troduced on  leave  ;  3,  Motions  or  resolutions  of  in- 
dividual Senators ;  4,  Orders  of  the  day.  This  is 
the  framework  for  arrangements  of  to-day.  -  The 
present  programme  for  the  routine,  so-called  morn- 
ing, business  dates  from  1834.  The  increase  of  spe- 
cial orders  demanded  in  1856  regulation  of  their 
priority  strictly  according  to  the  time  of  their  cre- 
ation. In  1862  John  P.  Hale  secured  the  limita- 
tion of  a  two-thirds  vote  for  their  making,  with  the 

148:1,  S.  J.,  442,  Mar.  19,  1884. 


318  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

suggestion  that  it  would  be  valuable  in  giving  pre- 
cedence to  financial  measures. 

The  close  of  the  Civil  War  found  the  business 
of  the  Senate  so  suddenly  augmented,  that  what 
with  the  precedence  of  appropriation  bills  and  Exec- 
utive business,  and  what  with  the  time  consumed 
merely  in  the  introduction  of  petitions,  bills,  re- 
ports, and  so  forth,  not  to  mention  unlimited  de- 
bate, many  important  committee  measures  failed 
for  want  of  final  consideration  and  a  vote.  If  a  few 
of  them  did  get  through,  it  was,  in  the  language 
of  Senator  Edmunds,  "  just  by  a  kind  of  sporadic 
impulse."  Attempts  for  reform  began  with  the  mo- 
tion of  Henry  B.  Anthony  for  a  committee  of  three 
to  revise  the  rules.  The  Senate  agreed,  and  ap- 
pointed Messrs.  Anthony,  Pomeroy,  and  Edmunds. 
Hitherto  such  committees  had  been  raised  at  ir- 
regular intervals,  but  henceforth  they  were  to  be  a 
constant  feature.  The  select  committee  on  rules 
was  made  a  standing  committee  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Anthony  in  1874,  and  its  membership  was  in- 
creased to  five  on  motion  of  Mr.  Morgan  in  1880. 
Each  of  the  three  original  members  had  his  favorite 
plan  for  a  better  order.  All  were  tried  as  danger- 
ous experiments  for  limited  periods,  —  during  the 
remainder  of  the  present  session  was  the  modest 
phrase,  —  and  all  in  modified  forms  finally  found 
their  way  into  the  order  of  business. 

Mr.  Pomeroy  was  for  enabling  the  Senate  to  lay 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  319 

on  the  table  amendments  to  the  appropriation  bills 
without  tabling  the  bills  themselves.  As  has  been 
stated,  this  rule  had  been  broached  when  Doug- 
las tried  to  introduce  the  previous  question  in 
1850.  He  proposed  also  to  limit  remarks  upon 
such  amendments  to  five  minutes  for  each  Senator.1 
His  measures  were  the  first  to  be  accepted,  that  one 
with  reference  to  laying  on  the  table  being  applied 
to  amendments  upon  all  kinds  of  bills.  They 
have  proved  of  high  value. 

The  chairman  of  the  committee  originated  what 
came  to  be  known  as  the  Anthony  Rule.  A  daily 
period,  first  of  half  an  hour  (1  to  1.30  p.m.),  and 
later  of  an  hour  (1  to  2  p.m.),  following  the  rou- 
tine morning  business,  was  devoted  to  going  over 
the  calendar  in  strict  order  under  Mr.  Pomeroy's 
five-minute  rule.  Consideration  was  to  be  given 
only  to  bills  to  which  no  one  should  object.  The 
serious  defect  of  the  regulation  is  apparent  on  its 
face.  A  Senator  anxious  to  reach  some  pet  meas- 
ure will  object  to  the  bills  that  precede  it,  one 
after  another.  After  his  own  has  been  considered 
for  a  time,  some  other  Senator  will  probably  enter 
objection  in  the  midst  of  proceedings,  and  away  it 
will  go  without  definite  action.  The  five-minute 
limit  cannot  withstand  the  spell  of  Senatorial  cour- 
tesy. The  practice  crept  in  of  occasionally  pro- 
Mi:  2,  S.  J.,  703,  May  25,  June  6,  9,  1870;  41:3,  S.  J.,  336, 
Feb.  22,  1871;  42:2,  S.  J.,  630-632,  C.  G.,  2867-2883,  April  29, 1872. 


320  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

ceeding  with  a  bill  by  a  majority  vote,  if  it  were 
objected  to.  President  pro  tempore  David  Davis 
raised  no  small  tempest  by  ruling  that  in  such 
case  the  five-minute  limit  should  still  apply;  it 
was  the  phantom  of  the  previous  question,  and  a 
new  clause  was  at  once  attached  to  the  rule  to 
reverse  his  decision.  The  best  that  can  be  said 
for  the  Anthony  Rule  is  the  comment  of  Mr.  Ed- 
munds, "Far  better  than  nothing."  It  has  been 
used  only  irregularly,  and  mainly  towards  the  hur- 
ried close  of  a  session,  and  is  now  almost  a  dead 
letter.  Many  loopholes  in  the  Senate's  practice 
permit  such  special  periods  of  time  to  be  invaded 
by  privileged  business,  morning  routine,  unani- 
mous consent.1 

The  third  plan,  that  of  Mr.  Edmunds,  was  origi- 
nally proposed  as  a  substitute  for  Mr.  Anthony's, 
but  has  come  into  the  code  for  determination  of 
proceedings  after  two  o'clock,  when  there  are  no 
special  orders.  By  it  a  list  of  general  orders  is 
to  be  considered  under  four  privileged  motions  de- 
cided without  debate:  first,  to  take  up  an  appro- 
priation bill ;  second,  to  consider  any  other  bill ; 
third,  to  pass  over  the  pending  subject ;  fourth, 
to  place  such  subject  at  the  foot  of  the  list.    "  Un- 

1  Debates  on  the  Anthony  Rule  throw  light  upon  the  Senate's 
methods  generally  :  41:2,  C.  G.,  2740,  April  18,  21,  June  22,  1870, 
Dec.  5,  1872;  43:  Special  Session,  C.  G.,  116;  45:  3,  C.  R.,  36,  605; 
47:1,  C.  R.,  869-875,  984,  3305-3308,  3345,  3346;  Rules  of  Senate, 
VII.-X.,  XVI.,  3,  4,  XVII. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  321 

der  this  rule  most  of  the  business  of  the  Senate  is 
reached  and  concluded,"  says  McKee.1  Theoreti- 
cally rather  than  practically  the  daily  programme 
is  divided  into  three  parts.  From  twelve  to  one 
come  matters  of  routine ;  from  one  to  two,  bills 
under  the  Anthony  Rule ;  from  two  onward,  bills 
under  the  Edmunds  Rule.  Commonly  two  meas- 
ures will  run  along  in  parallel  discussions  for  a 
number  of  days  as  unfinished  business.  Upon 
signal  from  the  Vice-President  the  first  will  be 
dropped  for  the  second  as  the  clock's  hands  point 
to  two.  Often  the  sitting  ends  in  the  evening's 
dusk  with  tired  action  upon  petty  private  affairs, 
or  secret  consideration  of  executive  business.  But 
between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  a  Congress 
there  is  great  variance. 

The  topic  of  the  growth  of  the  Senate's  com- 
mittee system,  and  the  relations  of  its  committees 
one  to  another,  may  be  the  more  speedily  disposed 
of  because  of  similarities  between  the  histories  of 
the  two  branches.2  Some  of  the  committees  exer- 
cise supervisory  powers.  Unless  otherwise  ordered, 
the  Committee  on  Printing  has  jurisdiction  over 

1  McKee's  "United  States  Red  Book,"  178-188;  comment  on 
the  order  of  business  by  Senator  R.  Q.  Mills,  Washington  Post, 
April  11,  1897,  p.  1. 

2  Chronicles  giving  the  origins  of  the  Senate's  standing  com- 
mittees are  contained  in  37:  3,  Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  No.  42;  52:2,  Sen. 
Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.  Other  facts  are  to  be  had  in  20: 1,  S.  J., 
41,  Feb.  14,  1828;  47: 1,  C.  R.,  53,  Dec.  8,  1881;  54: 1,  C.  R.,  Dec. 
9,  1895,  Jan.  28,  1896. 


322  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

requests  of  other  committees  for  leave  to  publish. 
The  Committee  of  Audit  and  Control  regulates 
the  employment  of  help  by  other  committees,  and 
all  matters  involving  an  expense  upon  the  con- 
tingent fund.  Amendments  proposed  by  other 
committees  for  increasing  appropriations,  or  rela- 
tive to  post-offices  and  posWoutes,  must  go  to  the 
Appropriations,  the  Commerce,  or  the  Post-Offices 
and  Post-Roads.  That  condition  which  prevailed 
in  the  House  before  the  Appropriations  was  shorn 
of  its  strength  now  obtains  to  a  degree  in  the  Sen- 
ate. Prior  to  1867  the  Committee  on  Finance, 
whose  name  had  been  adopted  in  1816  in  place 
of  the  ancient  one  of  Ways  and  Means,  held  juris- 
diction over  all  of  the  general  appropriations  save 
the  River  and  Harbor  Bill,  which  belonged  to  the 
Committee  on  Commerce.  The  Finance,  of  course, 
also  had  charge  of  measures  for  raising  revenue. 
The  Appropriations,  created  at  that  time,  has  in- 
herited control  of  all  of  its  appropriation  bills. 
Now  and  then  the  jealousy  and  bickering  between 
the  Appropriations  and  the  committees  for  general 
legislation  which  preceded  the  fall  of  the  House 
Appropriations  crop  out  also  in  the  Senate.  But 
the  system  stands  until  the  present.  Doubtless  one 
reason  therefor  is  the  limitation  of  the  upper  branch 
to  the  somewhat  lesser  part  of  amending.  The 
Senate  has  never  secured  the  privilege  of  originat- 
ing appropriation  bills,  though  it  has  made  consid- 


INTERIOR    ORGANIZATION.  323 

erable  effort  to  that  end.  Palliation  lies  also  in 
the  plan  of  having  one  representative  from  each 
of  the  Senate's  thirteen  more  important  committees 
for  general  legislation  a  member  of  the  Appropria1 
tions.1 

Progress  towards  continuity  and  stability  in 
business  methods  has  been  stronger  than  in  the 
House.  Like  the  lower  branch,  but  by  a  narrow 
majority  and  after  a  long  debate,  the  Senate  at 
first  decided  to  take  up  legislation  anew  at  the  be- 
ginning of  each  session,  rather  than  once  for  all  at 
the  opening  of  a  Congress.2  This  useless  process, 
of  course,  speedily  became  merely  formal,  but  the 
decision  of  that  earliest  Congress  was  not  reversed 
by  rule  until  1868.  Re-reference  of  business  at  a 
second  or  a  subsequent  session,  by  the  same  ar- 
guments, involved  the  reappointment  of  the  com- 
mittees. Previous  to  188-4  —  as  in  the  House 
previous  to  1860  — committee  lists  were  presented 
and  adopted  regularly  twice  or  three  times  in  the 
course  of  a  Congress.  The  six-year  tenure  of 
Senators,  with  the  choice  biennially  of  one-third, 
will  readily  be  recognized  as  the  great  agency  in 
minimizing  changes,  and  making  reorganization's 

1  On  appropriations  in  the  Senate,  cf.  52:2,  Sen.  Mis.  Docs., 
Vol.  VII.,  pp.  282-310;  40:1,  S.  J.,  8,  Mar.  6,  7, 1867;  48:1,C.R., 
366,  367,  Jan.  11,  1881;  Hinsdale's  "American  Government," 
188 ;  Rules  of  the  Senate,  XVI.  2. 

2  1:2,  C.  A.,  975,  Jan.  25,  1790;  Maclay's  Journal,  179-187; 
above,  p.  137. 


324  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

much  easier  than  in-  the  House.1  Once  upon  a 
committee,  a  Senator  has  rarely,  if  ever,  been  re- 
moved against  his  will.  Trading  of  places,  and 
changes  upon  the  expressed  desire  of  individuals, 
have  been  common  enough.  Every  two  years  the 
influx  of  new  Senators  is  sufficiently  large  to 
warrant  a  reorganization.  Fifteen  Republicans 
awaited  assignments  in  1895.  The  committee  list 
seemed  somewhat  shot-torn,  even  enfiladed,  after 
the  campaign ;  and  the  first  duty  was  to  recruit  its 
ranks.  The  change  of  power  meant  simply  the 
putting  of  each  committee's  minority  names  in 
front,  with  an  addition  of  one  to  their  number, 
and  the  dropping  of  the  lowest  name  on  the  side 
that  had  hitherto  ruled. 

Until  very  recently  the  adjournment  of  a  Con- 
gress has  disbanded  the  Senate's  committees.  But 
the  practice  has  now  arisen  of  continuing  them 
from  one  Congress  into  another.  For  this  a  prece- 
dent had  been  standing  some  years  in  a  rule  rela- 
tive to  the  three  on  Library,  Printing,  and  Audit 
and  Control.2  Some  Senatorial  leader  moves,  say 
on  the  3d  of  March  of  an  odd  year,  that  the  com- 
mittees as  at  present  constituted  be  by  unani- 
mous consent  continued  until  their  successors  are 


1  For  prominent  examples  of  the  tendency  to  continuity  in 
membership  from  session  to  session,  cf.  23:  2,  S.  J.,  5,  27,  35,  Dec. 
1,  2,  11,  1834. 

a  Rules  of  the  Senate,  XXV. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  325 

chosen.1  For  this  reason  the  reorganization  could 
be  delayed  until  a  month  or  more  after  the  Senate 
had  met  in  the  first  session  of  the  Fifty-fifth. Con- 
gress, evidently  to  the  advantage  of  the  old  mem- 
bers and  of  the  Republicans  who  hung  breathless 
upon  the  news  from  Kentucky.2 

Where  the  upper  classmen  have  constantly  a 
two-thirds  majority,  the  control  of  the  machinery 
will  be  always  firmly  within  their  grasp.  If  the 
House  of  Representatives  is  a  presbytery,  the  Sen- 
ate is  a  college  of  cardinals.  Out  of  the  claim  of 
the  majority  to  the  chairmanships  has  been  evolved 
as  nice  a  system  of  seniority  as  could  be  devised. 
In  1845  and  thereafter,  when  the  five  members  of 
a  committee  had  been  elected  by  ballot,  their  names 
were  on  motion  arranged  as  follows :  — 

1.  Democrat.  4.  Democrat 

2.  Democrat.  5.    Whiff. 

3.  Whig. 

If  there  were  but  one  Whig  on  the  committee,  he 
stood  third.  This  readjustment  to  give  a  member 
of  the  majority  party  second  place  and  right  of 
succession  to  the  chairmanship  sent  the   frontier 


1  51 : 2,  C.  R.,  Mar.  3,  1891 ;  the  first  instance. 

2  Senator  Morgan  condemned  this  innovation,  55 : 1,  C.  R.,  April 
22,  1897.  The  Kentucky  legislature  was  in  deadlock,  but  finally 
elected  a  Republican  Senator,  giving  the  Republicans  a  clear  ma- 
jority in  the  Senate ;  meanwhile,  every  day  had  spread  its  rumors 
of  combinations  to  wrest  away  their  power. 


326  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

Senator  from  Florida  into  amusing  tantrums  upon 
the  subject  of  primogeniture.  But  the  hold  of  the 
custom  grew,  until  finally  all  the  members  from 
the  majority  were  grouped  first,  with  the  distinct 
understanding  that  names  were  to  be  pushed  for- 
ward as  vacancies  occurred  in  their  front,  and  that 
new  Senators  were  to  "take  their  places  at  the 
bottom  of  the  ladder."  Men  who  thus  find  them- 
selves at  the  heads  of  two  or  more  committees 
when  a  new  Congress  opens,  make  a  choice,  and 
relinquish  all  but  one  chairmanship.1 

The  committee  chairman  is  a  leader  of  secon- 
dary importance,  much  less  privileged  on  the  floor 
of  the  Senate  than  on  the  floor  of  the  House.  His 
place  was  of  such  mere  narrow  distinction  at  the 
outset,  that  Maclay  could  generously  propose  to 
fill  it  with  the  "  Senator  of  the  most  northerly 
State  of  those  from  whom  the  committee  are 
taken."  Such,  permit  us  to  repeat  by  the  way,  is 
practically  the  rule  now,  thanks  to  superior  Yankee 
tenacity  and  longevity !  Its  material  advantages 
and  the  honor,  more  than  the  greater  power,  raise 
a  chairmanship  above  the  other  committee  posi- 
tions. The  chief  of  the  Appropriations  is,  how- 
ever, a  man  not  to  be  contemned. 

The  highest  Senatorial  leaders  are  to  be  sought 
elsewhere.  Mr.  Speaker's  great  power  in  the 
House  has  become    familiar.     The   Constitution- 

i  Washington  Post,  Dec.  9,  1895. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  327 

makers  forced  upon  the  Senate  a  presidency  weak 
and  artificial,  which  it  has  supplanted,  as  far  as 
it  has  dared,  by  leaders  of  its  own  creation.  The 
difficulties,  confusion,  and  struggles  attendant  up- 
on this  process  have  joined  with  the  other  numer- 
ous influences  which  have  retarded  organization. 
Our  Constitution  declares  :  — 

"  The  Vice-President  of  the  United  States  shall 
be  President  of  the  Senate,  but  shall  have  no  vote, 
unless  they  be  equally  divided. 

"The  Senate  shall  choose  their  other  officers, 
and  also  a  President  pro  tempore,  in  the  absence 
of  the  Vice-President,  or  when  he  shall  exercise 
the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States." 

From  the  qualifications  and  duties  of  the  Vice- 
President,  as  described  in  the  Constitution,  and 
from  the  Senate's  history,  are  to  be  gathered  the 
reasons  for,  and  the  evidences  of,  his  unfitness  for 
the  headship  of  the  Senate.  Statesmen  were  puz- 
zled in  1789  over  this  position.1  By  their  final 
decision  the  office  was  put,  so  to  speak,  half-way 
between  the  White  House  and  the  Capitol,  where 
it  has  ever  remained.  The  Presidency  of  the  Sen- 
ate is  unusually  liable  to  become  vacant.  For  a 
body  chosen  primarily  to  represent  territory  was  pro- 
vided a  president  primarily  representative  of  popu- 
lation. His  tenure  was  made  different  from  that  of 
a  Senator,  four  years  instead  of  six.     As  a  rule  he 

1  The  Federalist,  No.  68. 


328  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

was  to  have  no  vote  to  strengthen  his  power.  Ne- 
cessarily this  original  inadaptation  has  made  and 
kept  him  a  figurehead.  "  Leaders  are  not  elected, 
but  born,"  cries  the  Congressional  wit.  By  the 
light  of  experience  in  the  House  and  in  the  gov- 
ernment generally,  had  the  office  been  free  from 
its  overshadowing  consideration,  the  succession  to 
the  chief  magistracy,  limited  to  two  years,  and 
filled  by  a  majority  of  the  States  rather  than  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people,  true  and  beneficent  leadership, 
which  is  conditioned  upon  accord  with  the  major- 
ity of  an  assembly,  would  have  speedily  evolved 
therefrom. 

The  first  Vice-President  was  not  an  ideal  chair- 
man, as  any  one  at  all  acquainted  with  his  personal- 
ity will  perceive.1  The  second  was  not  in  political 
touch  with  the  majority  of  those  over  whom  he 
presided.  The  third  was  a  disappointed  Presiden- 
tial candidate,  irregular  in  attendance,  taking  his 
seat  with  indictments  for  murder  hanging  over  his 
head.2  The  fourth,  by  testimony  indeed  of  one 
whom  he  had  overruled,  was  wanting  in  parliamen- 
tary perception  and  experience.3  So  on  down  the 
list,  there  is  more  of  the  unsatisfactory  than  of  the 
satisfactory.     The   man  who  stands  out  preemi- 


1  Maclay's  Journal,  with  bitter  enmity,  portrays  him  in  the 
Senate's  presiding  chair. 

2  J.  Q.  Adams's  Memoirs,  I.  277,  314,  315. 
»  Ibid.,  I.  274,  383-385. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  329 

nently  as  embodying  the  weakness  of  the  office, 
and  as  responsible  for  its  long  decadence  after  he 
was  gone,  is  John  C.  Calhoun.  Twice  in  succes- 
sion he  was  chosen  to  the  place.  His  long,  slow 
journeys  to  Washington  almost  invariably  brought 
him  in  late  for  the  opening  of  Congress.  Oddly 
enough,  John  Randolph's  harangues  played  the 
same  part  in  degrading  the  Vice-Presidency  as  in 
elevating  the  Speakership.  We  see  these  two 
gaunt  figures  of  the  Old  South  communing,  the 
one  by  his  silence,  the  other  by  his  noise,  in  the 
Senate.  Calhoun,  the '  doctrinaire,  decided  that 
the  Constitution  and  the  Senate's  rules  gave  him 
no  power  to  call  the  raving  Virginian  to  order. 
Though  the  Senate,  after  one  of  those  marvelous 
debates  of  its  earlier  history,  thrust  upon  him  the 
duty  which  he  had  rejected,  he  muttered,  "  As  to 
the  power  conferred  upon  the  chair  it  was  not  for 
him  to  speak,"  and  his  evil  work  continued  to  bear 
fruit.1  When,  in  1881,  a  Senator  faintly  challenged 
the  right  of  the  Vice-President  to  a  casting  vote  in 
the  adoption  of  the  committee  list,  it  was  as  if  the 
wizard  specter  of  the  long  ago  had  suddenly  reared 
itself  behind  the  presiding  chair. 

The  Carolinian  came  into  the  Presidency  of  the 
Senate  just  at  the  time  when  the  choice  of  com- 
mittees was  first  being  intrusted  to  the  presiding 
officer.     His   first   and   only  performance   of   the 

i  20  :  1,  C.  D.,  278-341,  Feb.  11-15,  1828. 


330  CONGUESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

duty  was  so  unsatisfactory  that  it  was  at  once 
taken  out  of  his  hands  by  an  almost  unanimous 
vote,  —  a  deprivation  which  he  seemed  rather  to 
enjoy  than  to  regret.1  The  investment  of  the  ap- 
pointing power  in  the  President  pro  tempore  shortly 
thereafter  was  considered  a  distinct  intimation  to 
the  Vice-President  not  to  put  in  appearance  until 
the  committees  were  organized.2  A  dozen  years 
after  Calhoun's  failure,  the  task,  through  Clay's 
suave  persuasion,  was  intrusted  to  Richard  M. 
Johnson,  the  only  Vice-President  that  the  Senate 
has  ever  elected ;  and  he  performed  it  twice.3  The 
third  and  last  instance  was  in  1845.  Vice-Presi- 
dent George  M.  Dallas,  at  the  two  weeks'  special 
session  that  followed  immediately  upon  his  inaugu- 
ration, appointed  all  of  the  committees  under  an 
injunction  of  secrecy  which  was  shortly  removed.4 
What  were  the  real  motives  that  prevailed  for  this 
proceeding,  and  why  the  Senate  twice  afterwards 
refused  to  bestow  the  authority  upon  him,  is  diffi- 
cult to  determine.    He  was  promptly  at  hand  in  De- 

i  19:1 ,  C.  D.,  525,  571,  576,  757-760,  April  12, 15,  17, 1826;  52: 2, 
Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.,  pp.  118-124.  Also  Millard  Fillmore's 
paper  in  defense  of  the  Vice-Presidency,  which  was  adopted  by 
the  Senate  unanimously,  and  spread  upon  the  Journal,  31:1,  C. 
G.,  631-633,  April  3, 1850.  That  Calhoun's  decision  could  operate 
to  the  embarrassing  of  his  later  disciples  is  evident  from  a  discus- 
sion of  June  26,  1856,  34: 1,  C.  G.,  1477-1485. 

2  23:1,  CD.,  22,  23. 

«  25:1,  S.  J.,  26,  27,  Sept.  7,  8,  1837;  25:2,  S.  J.,  26,  27,  Dec. 
6,  1837. 

4  28: 2,  S.  J.,  289,  290,  March  10,  1845. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  331 

cember  following  ;  but  four  members  of  his  party, 
with  Benton  as  leader,  united  with  the  Whigs 
against  him,  twenty-one  to  twenty.  Buchanan  and 
he  were  rival  Pennsylvania  politicians,  and  Bu- 
chanan was  Polk's  Secretary  of  State.  That  may 
have  had  something  to  do  with  the  matter.  Since 
then  the  power  has  lodged  elsewhere,  save  for  the 
occasional  filling  of  vacancies,  as  by  John  C.  Breck- 
inridge in  1861,  upon  the  withdrawal  of  the  South- 
ern Senators,  or  by  Schuyler  Colfax  for  a  short 
session  in  1871.  In  other  ways  the  Senate  has 
limited  the  Vice-President's  power,  notably  in  its 
refusal  to  allow  Mr.  Dallas  and  his  successors  to 
delegate  the  functions  of  the  chair.1  What  a  bit 
of  sophistry  was  the  proposition  of  those  rival  Re- 
publicans who,  before  the  late  nomination,  thought 
to  lure  Speaker  Reed's  followers  from  his  support 
for  the  Presidency  by  visions  of  a  rdle  for  him  as 
reforming  Vice-President  in  the  Senate.  There  is 
an  interesting  ring  of  contrast  in  the  valedictory 
and  the  salutatory  of  Vice-Presidents  Stevenson 
and  Hobart.  The  former's  words  carry  the  weight 
of  experience ;  the  latter's  hardly  justify  the  cap- 
ital that  has  been  made  out  of  them,  let  alone  the 
idea  of  a  remaking  of  the  Senate  through  his  au- 
thority.2    The  Vice-President  has  realized  Frank- 


i  29:2,  C.  G.,  Jan.  11,  1847. 

2  54: 2,  S.  J.,  189,  192,  March  4,  1897 ;  editorial  on  power  of  the 
Vice-President,  Washington  Post,  March  7,  1897. 


332  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

lin's  jest,  "  His  Superfluous  Majesty."  In  recent 
times  he  has  found  his  greatness  as  a  leader  of 
polite  society  at  the  gay  national  capital. 

Turning  from  him  to  the  President  pro  tempore, 
the  first  objection  to  this  officer  as  the  central  pil- 
lar upon  which  to  rest  a  legislative  organization 
lies  in  the  fact  that  his  selection  from  among  the 
Senators  disturbs  that  equality  of  the  States  upon 
which  the  Senate  is  based.  The  question  whether 
or  not  he  can  be  chosen  from  without  the  body 
has  been  raised  in  later  days,  but  not  seriously 
entertained.1  Despite  the  superiority  accruing  to 
his  State,  he  might  have  become  just  such  another 
power  for  appointing  the  committees,  and  perhaps 
for  other  functions,  as  the  Speaker  of  the  House, 
had  it  not  been  that,  from  1792  until  1886,  he,  like 
the  Vice-President,  stood  by  law  in  line  of  suc- 
cession to  the  Presidency,  and  that  until  1876  his 
office  was  construed  by  the  Senate  to  terminate 
upon  the  appearance  of  the  Vice-President  to  claim 
its  chair.  With  a  well-nigh  unbroken  record  from 
1792,  the  Senate  chose  a  President  pro  tempore 
near  the  close  of  each  session,  the  Vice-President 
retiring  meanwhile.  The  object  was  to  guard  the 
succession  to  the  chief  magistracy,  for  the  tenure 
of  the  man  so  elected  extended  through  the  recess 
into  the  beginning  of  the  succeeding  session.  But 
while  the  Vice-President  was  actually  occupying 

i  New  York  World,  Dec.  1.  1885. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  333 

the  chair,  the  Presidency  pro  tempore  was  consid- 
ered to  be  vacant,  so  that  an  election  occurred  upon 
each  occasion  of  his  absence.  In  1876,  however, 
and  again  in  1890,  the  Senate  decided,  after  care- 
ful inquiry,  that  the  President  pro  tempore  held  his 
office  at  its  pleasure,  coming  into  the  chair  when- 
ever the  Vice-President  might  be  away.  There- 
fore his  tenure  now  extends  indefinitely,  until  he 
resigns,  or  is  superseded  by  the  election  of  another 
to  the  place.1 

A  President  pro  tempore,  John  Gaillard,  was  the 
first  presiding  officer  to  be  intrusted  with  the  ap- 
pointment of  the  committees.  Calhoun's  derelic- 
tion deprived  both  positions  of  the  privilege,  but 
in  1828  it  was  conferred  upon  the  President  pro 
tempore  alone.  Four  times  the  work  was  smoothly 
performed,  and  then,  in  December,  1833,  came  a 
political  tangle.  Calhoun  had  not  appeared  at  all 
for  the  preceding  session  until,  having  resigned  the 
Vice-Presidency,  he  came  as  a  Senator  in  January. 
Hugh  Lawson  White  of  Tennessee  had  been  chosen 
President  pro  tempore  Dec.  3,  1832,  and  had  ap- 
pointed the  committees  according  to  rule.2  Hold- 
ing the  office  continuously,  he  resumed  the  chair 
at  the  opening  of  the  next  Congress,  a  year  later. 
Here,  at  the  outset  of  this  most  brilliant  of  Sena- 
torial sessions,  was  a  delicate  conjuncture.     White 

i  52:2,  Sen.  Mis.  Docs.,  Vol.  VII.,  pp.  167-190. 
2  Parton's  "Life  of  Jackson,"  III.  463,  478. 


334  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

and  Van  Buren  were  rivals  for  the  heirship  to 
Jackson.  By  appearing,  and  taking  his  seat  as 
the  newly-elected  Vice-President,  Van  Buren  could 
very  speedily  terminate  White's  office  as  President 
pro  tempore,  and  deprive  him  of  the  selection  of 
the  committees,  which  would  revert  to  ballot  by 
the  Senate.  This  would  have  pleased  the  Whigs. 
But  Van  Buren  held  off,  resting  upon  his  singular 
laurels,  and  did  not  come  until  the  month  was  half 
over.  Meanwhile,  though  White  had  his  list  pre- 
pared, the  Senate,  under  the  impulse  of  high  feel- 
ing involved  by  the  selection  of  a  committee  to 
report  upon  Rhode  Island's  right  to  unseat  one 
Senator  and  put  another  in  his  place,  abolished 
the  rule  which  had  vested  appointment  of  the  com- 
mittees in  the  chair.  The  intimate  friendship  of 
White  and  President  Jackson,  not  yet  greatly  im- 
paired, was  probably  the  chief  underlying  cause 
of  this  slight.  Senator  Poindexter  said  that  "  he 
had  learned  that  lists  of  the  names  of  committees 
had  been  sent  in  to  the  Departments  to  see  if  they 
were  acceptable ; "  and  it  may  be  noted  that  Sena- 
tor -Poindexter  was  the  next  President  pro  tem- 
pore} All  this  would  not  have  occurred  had  it 
been  customary,  as  previously  to  the  Act  of  1792, 
to  leave  the  Presidency  pro  tempore  vacant  during 
a  recess,  and  fill  it,  if  necessary,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  following  session.     In  such  case  the  Senate 

i  23: 1,  C.  D.,  11-29,  December,  1833. 


INTERIOR  ORGANIZATION.  335 

could  have  chosen  a  man  in  fresh  accord  with  its 
sentiments.  The  tedious  ballot  prevailed  until 
Vice-President  Johnson  came  in  1837,  and,  with- 
out disturbance  after  him,  appointment  of  the  com- 
mittees fell  to  Presidents  pro  tempore  for  six  years, 
each  time  by  unanimous  consent.  The  conduct  of 
Vice-President  Dallas  in  1845  broke  off  these  har- 
monious arrangements  finally  and  for  good,  at  the 
same  time  ushering  in  the  caucus  method.  Be- 
cause of  Dallas's  failure  or  refusal  to  vacate  the 
chair  at  the  close  of  his  first  brief  session,  which 
would  have  accorded  with  unbroken  custom,  a 
President  pro  tempore  was  not  elected.  Even  had 
one  been  in  office  when  the  following  session  be- 
gan, the  prompt  appearance  of  Mr.  Dallas  would 
have  excluded  him,  as  it  did  upon  the  opening  day 
of  the  third  session  in  1846.  Consequently  the 
Senate  had  to  make  choice  of  appointment  by  the 
Vice-President,  the  ballot,  or  some  new  device.1 

Henry  Clay  saw  possibilities  in  the  President 
pro  tempore.  "  If  it  were  permitted  to  grow  into  a 
practice,"  said  he,  for  that  officer  "  to  appoint  the 
committees  in  the  absence  of  the  Vice-President, 
the  exception  might  become  the  rule  and  the  rule 
the  exception."  He  was  seconded  in  this  view  by 
Mr.  Fessenden  when  the  President  pro  tempore  last 

1  There  was  no  President  pro  tempore  from  March  4, 1845,  until 
Aug.  8,  1846,  save  an  occasional  substitute  named,  not  without 
protest  on  the  part  of  Senators,  by  Mr.  Dallas,  29: 1,  C.  G  ,  95,  96, 
1209,  1210,  Dec.  23,  1845,  Aug.  8,  1846. 


836  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

performed  the  task.1  As  it  is,  large  powers  have 
pertained  to  the  position,  which  the  Vice-President 
has  not  enjoyed.  Besides  the  right  to  vote  upon 
all  occasions,  the  President  pro  tempore  has  his 
places  upon  the  committees.  Custom,  in  the  '20's 
and  '30's,  prescribed  that  the  Senate  should  elect 
him  to  a  fine  chairmanship  before  he  announced  his 
committee  list.  In  later  times  he  has  had  his  full 
share  of  the  places.  Mr.  Ferry,  in  1877,  was  chair- 
man of  the  Post-Offices  and  Post-Roads,  second  on 
the  Rules,  and  third  on  the  Finance.  Mr.  Frye,  in 
the  Fifty-fifth  Congress,  is  chairman  of  the  Com- 
merce, and  holds  positions  upon  four  other  com- 
mittees of  first  importance. 

There  are  possibilities  of  conflict  between  the 
two  Constitutional  dignitaries.  By  unbroken  at- 
tendance a  Vice-President  of  one  political  faith 
has  been  able  to  exclude  from  the  presiding  func- 
tions a  President  pro  tempore  of  another.  During 
the  Fifty-fourth  Congress  the  Vice-President  was 
absent  but  nineteen  days.  Under  the  old  theory 
he  could  prevent  a  majority  of  other  politics  than 
his  own  from  deposing  a  President  pro  tempore 
elected  when  its  opponents  were  in  power,  and 
choosing  one  from  its  own  membership.  Whether 
he  can  now  do  so  may  be  a  mooted  question.  A 
Republican  majority  came  into  control  in  Decem- 
ber, 1895,  but  did  not  elect  a  President  pro  tern- 

i  37 : 3,  C.  G.,  1554,  Mar.  5,  1863. 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  337 

pore  until  the  7th  of  February  following,  upon 
which  date  Vice-President  Stevenson  first  absented 
himself.1  The  party's  hold  was  but  nominal,  and 
this  election  was  noted  as  a  sequence  of  its  previ- 
ously acquired  precedence  upon  the  committees.2 
However,  departures  from  custom  at  the  two  im- 
mediately preceding  elections  are  noteworthy.  The 
Senatorial  service  of  President  pro  tempore  Ingalls 
ending  March  4,  1891,  it  devolved  upon  the  Re- 
publican caucus  to  nominate  another  man.  After 
somewhat  of  a  contest,  Mr.  Manderson  of  Nebraska, 
the  candidate  of  the  Silverites,  was  selected.3  Mr. 
Sherman,  chairman  of  the  caucus,  proposed  his  name 
in  the  Senate,  and  his  election  was  remarkable  for 
two  circumstances  :  it  was  unanimous  ;  and  for  the 
first  time  in  the  Senate's  history,  the  Vice-Presi- 
dent —  on  this  occasion  Mr.  Morton  —  was  not 
only  present,  but  administered  the  oath  of  office 
to  the  President  pro  tempore.  The  same  course 
was  followed  at  the  next  election,  that  of  Mr.  Har- 
ris, at  which  time  Mr.  Manderson  significantly  said, 
44  Recognizing  a  change  of  condition,  and,  perhaps, 
also  a  change  of  theory,  I  now  tender  my  resigna- 
tion." Here  was  added  a  third  new  precedent; 
namely,  that  the  President  pro  tempore  should  go 
out  of  power  at  once  with  his  party.     From  these 

1  54: 1,  C.  R,,  1443,  Feb.  7,  1896;  the  election  was  unanimous. 

2  Washington  Post,  Feb.  8,  1896. 

8  New  York  Tribune,  March  2,  1891. 


338  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

changes,  the  dropping  of  the  old  incumbrances 
upon  the  office,  and  the  new  interpretations  of  its 
tenure,  interesting  developments  may  come.  Al- 
though always  resembling  the  Speaker  of  the  Brit- 
ish Commons  rather  than  the  Speaker  of  the 
American  House,  undoubtedly  the  man  who  sits 
in  the  Senate's  chair  has  been  getting  to  be  a  more 
and  more  important  personage  as  the  century  has 
run  its  course. 

But  if,  on  that  hurried  March  day  of  the  ex- 
piring Fifty-first  Congress,  the  question  had  been 
asked  which  of  the  three  central  participators  in 
the  election  was  the  greatest  power  in  the  Senate, 
the  answer  must  have  been,  not  Mr.  Morton  nor 
Mr.  Manderson,  but  the  caucus  chairman  who 
moved  the  tersely .  worded  formulas,  John  Sher- 
man. He  was  the  true  premier.  His  was  the 
leadership  which  the  Senate  has  evolved  to  supply 
the  defects  in  its  original  endowment.  Party  cau- 
cuses in  Congress  are  old  as  the  government,  and 
have  had  their  presiding  officers  and  their  com- 
mittees from  the  beginning.  Naturally  a  party 
has  put  forward  the  man  whom  it  has  chosen  to 
preside  in  its  caucus  also  to  lead  it  upon  the 
Senate  floor.  When  Theodore  Sedgwick  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, on  a  May  day  of  1797,  proposed  and 
pushed  through  the  Senate  upon  strict  party  votes 
the  list  of  three  committees  which  had  previously 
been  agreed  upon  in  a  Federalist  caucus,  he  was 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  339 

but  the  archetype  of  Thomas  H.  Carter,  Republi- 
can from  Montana,  who  much  more  easily  secured 
the  appointment  of  sixty  on  a  May  day  of  1897.1 
These  powerful  caucus  chiefs  of  ruling  majorities 
in  the  Senate  —  a  little  reflection  will  recall  many 
of  them :  before  the  Civil  War,  King  of  Alabama, 
Mangum,  Sevier,  Cass,  Douglas,  Bright,  and  peer- 
less Henry  Clay ;  after  it,  Trumbull,  Anthony,  Ed- 
munds, Sherman,  Gorman,  and  Allison.  In  earlier 
records  they  are  most  easily  recognized  as  those 
who  made  the  time-honored  motions  that  belonged 
to  the  opening  days  of  a  session.  At  all  times 
they  have  been  prominent  upon  the  Senate's  floor 
when  legislative  crises  have  been  pending.  The 
chance  visitor  may  ordinarily  overlook  them,v  so 
quietly  are  they  sitting  in  their  places;  but  let  a 
sharp  political  skirmish  arise,  and  they  are  to  be 
seen,  either  pushing  forward  their  lieutenants,  or 
coining  boldly  to  the  front  themselves.  When 
they  speak,  the  Senate  listens;  the  people,  too, 
are  beginning  to  hearken. 

Their  power  is  puzzling  without  some  knowl- 
edge of  what  goes  on  behind  the  scenes.  It  origi- 
nates in  those  secret  voluntary  organizations  of 
Senators  which  are  unknown  to  the  Constitution, 
the  statutes,  or  the  parliamentary  code.  On  dif- 
ferent floors  of  the  Senate  wing,  and  quite  removed 

i  5:1,  C.  A.,  21,  May  29,  1797;  Ford's  "Writings  of  Jeffer- 
son," VII.  132. 


340  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

from  each  other,  are  the  headquarters  of  the  two 
great  political  parties.  The  minority  chief,  a  much 
more  powerful  personage  in  the  Senate  than  in 
the  House,  has  his  room  in  a  secluded  part  of  the 
so-called  attic  story.  Here  he  presides  at  councils 
which  plan  the  battle  in  the  Senate.  He  appoints 
the  caucus  committees,  including  that  one  which 
slates  his  party's  membership  of  the  Senate's  legis- 
lative committees,  and  which  is  known  as  the  Com- 
mittee on  Committees.  Often  the  caucus  assigns 
to  him  powers  plenipotentiary  for  negotiations  with 
the  enemy's  caucus  chairman,  who  on  his  part 
appoints  the  majority's  Committee  on  Committees 
and  Steering  Committee.  Do  these  two  veteran 
Senators  join  each  other  in  a  pleasant  home  parlor 
of  an  evening,  behold  there,  haloing  their  whitened 
locks,  the  power  of  the  Senate  at  its  acme ! 

Mutterings  of  their  arbitrary  rule  now  and  then 
arise  among  Senators,  as  do  threats  of  revolt  against 
the  Speaker  among  Representatives.  Revolutions 
come  at  rare  intervals.  In  1871,  when  a  Wiscon- 
sin man  presented  the  list  of  committees  to  the 
Senate,  an  honor  which  had  long  fallen  to  the  aged 
Senator  from  Rhode  Island,  the  Republicans  did 
but  light  over  again  in  public  the  quarrel  which 
had  begun  in  the  recesses  of  their  caucus.  Repub- 
licans of  the  far  West  held  a  sectional  consultation 
in  1895,  preliminary  to  the  general  consultation, 
and  resolved  to  stand  together.     They  demanded 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  341 

of  the  main  caucus  the  election  of  the  Committee 
on  Committees  by  ballot,  but  were  quieted  by  an 
agreement  that  the  chairman's  selections  should  be 
conditioned  on  caucus  confirmation. 

The  Committee  on  Committees,  it  may  well  be 
believed,  is  a  high  governing  body.  So  also  is 
the  Steering  Committee,  which  corresponds  to  the 
House  Committee  on  Rules.  One  committee  some- 
times serves  in  place  of  these  two.  In  naming 
their  members,  seniority  is  the  main  guide  of  the 
caucus  chairman,  just  as  it  is  the  first  considera- 
tion of  the  Committee  on  Committees  in  filling 
out  the  legislative  committees.  Increase  in  size 
has  characterized  caucus  committees  also.  Messrs. 
Foote,  Dixon,  and  Bingham  were  the  Republican 
Committee  on  Committees  in  1859.  In  1865  it 
had  five  members  ;  in  1879,  nine.  It  reverted  to 
five  for  the  close  struggle  with  the  Democratic 
Senators  in  1881.  In  1883  it  had  seven;  in  1897 
it  again  has  nine.  For  many  years  the  Democratic 
Committee  on  Committees  has  consisted  of  nine 
Senators.  Steering  committees  are  smaller.  Those 
of  recent  sessions  have  had  memberships  of  five. 
The  Democratic  caucus  chairman  appoints  himself 
as  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Committees ; 
the  Republican  appoints  some  one  else.  Senator 
Allison  has  named  himself  as  head  of  the  Repub- 
lican Steering  Committee  in  the  Fifty-fifth  Con- 
gress.    The    rule    is,  once    on,,  no   removal  until 


342  CONGRESSIONAL    COMMITTEES. 

death  or  failure  of  reelection  to  the  Senate ;  and, 
in  general,  the  characteristics  of  the  legislative 
committees  are  those  of  the  caucus  committees, 
save  that  the  majority  and  minority  representation, 
if  there  be  such,  is  from  wings  of  the  same  party 
instead  of  from  different  parties,  that  is,  from 
parties  within  parties. 

Steering  committees  watch  proceedings  upon  the 
Senate  floor,  call  caucuses,  and  give  the  cues  to 
action.  On  the  10th  of  March,  1897,  the  Repub- 
lican Senators  appeared  in  their  seats  promptly 
upon  the  opening  of  the  Senate ;  each  had  re- 
ceived a  note  from  the  Steering  Committee,  bidding 
him  to  so  order  himself,  though  without  any  rea- 
son assigned.  The  heaviest  responsibilities  of  the 
Committee  on  Committees  fall,  of  course,  at  the 
beginning  of  a  Congress.  However,  filling  of 
the  vacancies  which  occur  at  later  times  is  being 
gathered  within  its  prerogative.  Its  very  dif- 
ficult tasks  are  sometimes  evidenced  by  sittings 
many  hours  long.  Seniority  usually  makes  the  as- 
signment of  chairmanships  easy,  but  the  other  posi- 
tions must  be  filled  after  lively  competition  among 
self-avowed  candidates.  New  members  clamor  for 
speedy  assignment,  and  the  chairmen  of  the  com- 
mittees that  pass  upon  Executive  nominations  can- 
not brook  delay.  Sometimes  the  Committee  on 
Committees  summons  the  discontented  to  a  hear- 
ing.    Again,  its  members    go   upon  the   floor  to 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  343 

consult  the  other  Senators  as  to  their  desires,  and 
to  reconcile  them,  if  possible,  to  its  proposed 
appointments.  Finally,  it  presents  the  completed 
list  to  the  caucus  for  approval  or  disapproval. 
Thereupon  it  may  be  accused  of  having  provided 
too  liberally  for  itself,  and  its  decisions  may  be 
overruled.  If  this  submission  for  ratification  is 
omitted,  even  in  the  filling  of  an  occasional  va- 
cancy, complaint  is  likely  to  follow.  But  generally 
the  labor  is  satisfactorily  performed. 

In  this  caucus  system  the  Senate  has  worked 
out  methods  peculiarly  its  own.  Silently  and  nat- 
urally they  have  taken  shape.  All  the  intricacies 
of  the  situation  are  at  last  met.  The  forms  are 
plentiful,  but  have  not  attracted  general  attention. 
They  lack  a  certain  vital  quality.  There  are  cus- 
toms and  there  are  leaders.  From  them  the  Senate, 
in  its  own  good  time  and  only  when  it  recognizes 
the  full  necessity,  will  select  such  as  are  fittest  for 
its  stronger  self-government.  Meanwhile,  saith 
the  Senator,  let  pessimistic  Mugwumps  and  a  pam- 
pered college  populace  breathe  out  magazine  at- 
tacks as  long  and  as  airy  as  the  flights  of  Duns 
Scotus  or  Saint  Thomas  Aquinas ! 

From  the  study  of  the  Senate's  procedure  a  sum- 
mary is  drawn  as  follows.  Caucuses  with  their 
chairmen  and  their  committee  machinery  have  been 
its  only  escape  from  dire  confusion  and  weakness 
of   leadership   due   to  Constitutional   difficulties. 


344  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

The  Presidency  pro  tempore,  in  addition  to  other 
shortcomings,  was  handicapped  during  early  times 
by  the  Senate's  narrow  construction  as  to  its  ten- 
ure, and  by  the  statute  which  put  its  occupant  in 
line  of  succession  to  the  Presidency  of  the  United 
States ;  but  the  latter  drawback  has  been  removed, 
and  a  new  interpretation  of  the  Constitution  gives 
always  and  continuously  a  President  pro  tempore, 
whose  term  is  contemporaneous  with  the  suprem- 
acy of  his  party.  The  committee  systems,  both 
of  the  Senate  and  of  the  caucuses,  have  emphasized 
that  basal  idea  that  the  Senators  shall  come  from 
among  the  elders  of  the  land  by  giving  the  lead  in 
lawmaking  to  the  elders  of  these  elders.  A  mod- 
erate parliamentary  development  measures  the  Sen- 
ate's share  in  the  progress  of  all  things  American. 
Committees  are  much  less  powerful  in  the  upper 
than  in  the  lower  chamber.  The  six  New  England 
States,  and  a  chain  of  six  Southern  States,  with 
Florida  and  Missouri  as  extremes,  are  the  two 
steadfast  party  regions  of  the  United  States  whose 
conservatism  in  retaining  their  men  enables  them 
to  hold  the  chief  places  of  the  Senate.  Popular 
control  over  Senators  has  been  growing  to  some 
extent.  The  Southerner  and  the  Westerner  have 
hitherto  continuously  combined  in  powerful  re- 
sistance to  centralization  by  legislative  rules.  A 
knitting  together  of  the  general  government  makes 
the  Senate  more  dependent  than  formerly  upon 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  345 

the  attitudes  of  the  House  or  of  the  Executive. 
Strong  organization  in  the  House,  backed  by  pub- 
lic opinion,  can  exert  an  effective  moral  suasion 
upon  the  other  wing  of  the  Capitol. 

The  times  seem  ripe  for  a  few  next  steps.  The 
committee  system  needs  to  be  pruned  of  dead 
branches.  Routine  business  at  daily  sessions  might 
be  shortened.  Election  of  Senators  by  the  people 
directly,  rather  than  by  the  State  legislatures,  is  in 
line  with  the  democratic  trend  of  political  institu- 
tions. That  four  general  appropriation  bills  failed 
in  the  late  Congress  is  signal  of  their  coming  dis- 
tribution among  the  committees  on  the  Senate  side. 
Finally,  the  arguments  for  the  previous  question 
are  accumulating.  This  Senate  issue  of  more  than 
five  decades  involves  principles  for  the  most  part 
identical  with  those  which  have  been  sketched  for 
the  earlier,  quickly  decided  House  struggle.  Two 
sentences  from  the  two  first  great  Senate  cham- 
pions of  1841  are  all-inclusive  texts  for  the  op- 
posing views.  Henry  Clay  said,  u  The  greatest 
grievance  complained  of  by  the  people  with  regard 
to  Congress  is  the  delay  of  public  business  by  long 
speeches."  Thomas  H.  Benton  replied,  "  The  pre- 
vious question  and  the  old  sedition  law  are  meas- 
ures of  the  same  character  and  children  of  the 
same  parents,  and  intended  for  the  same  purposes. 
They  are  to  hide  light,  to  enable  those  in  power  to 
work  in  darkness."    It  was  best  that  Benton  should 


346  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

triumph  then.  The  conditions  of  1800,  to  which 
he  looked  back,  were  yet  too  little  relieved.  Would 
that  he  had  succeeded  in  his  manly  efforts  against 
national  plunder.  Even  Clay  was  but  half-hearted 
in  his  advocacy.  But  all  our  progress  since  that 
day  has  been  subtracting  from  Benton's  side,  and 
adding  to  Clay's.  Even  the  Senator  who  sits  in 
the  chair  of  Benton  recently  experienced  a  remark- 
able conversion  to  the  cause  of  limited  debate. 
The  telegraph,  the  railroad,  the  printing-press,  the 
larger,  better  reported  Senate,  the  modern  increase 
in  Federal  business,  —  these  are  but  leading  argu- 
ments added  by  a  wonderful  change  of  conditions. 
The  people  to  whom  the  Kentuckian  appealed  looked 
up  to  their  Senators ;  now  the  Senators  must  look 
out  to  their  people.  From  the  flickering  interior 
illumination  of  the  past  the  Senate  turns  to  broad- 
est day  streaming  in  through  a  thousand  windows. 
The  previous  question  deals  simply  with  the  length 
of  speech;  it  does  not  note  the  character  of  what 
is  said.  From  its  many  forms  advocated  at  vari- 
ous times  the  Senate  can  construct  that  one  which 
most  nearly  suits  its  conditions.  The  errors  of  the 
House  are  avoidable.  The  half-hour  of  grace  there 
may  be  extended  into  days  divided  equitably  be- 
tween the  Senate's  majority  and  minority.  Free- 
dom of  action  upon  amendments  need  have  no 
prohibition.  That  same  courtesy  which  has  served 
as  the  only  check  upon  minority  debate  would  be 


INTERIOR   ORGANIZATION.  347 

but  transferred  across  the  aisle,  there  to  likely 
serve  as  too  powerful  a  limit  upon  majority  action. 
Our  nation  seems  to  have  reached  the  halting- 
ground.  All  our  vast  territory  is  blocked  out 
into  States.  The  land-offices  are  closing.  We 
have  caught  sight  of  Japan.  The  westward  move- 
ment rolls  back  upon  itself.  It  is  the  parting  of 
the  ways  between  extensive  and  intensive  growth, 
the  time  for  a  mighty  amalgamation  of  North, 
South,  East,  and  West.  In  view  of  our  entrance 
upon  this  new  era,  the  future  of  the  Senate  is  a 
subject  of  concern.  That  part  of  the  United  States 
which  lies  east  of  the  Mississippi,  together  with 
Louisiana,  comprises  less  than  twenty-seven  per 
cent  of  the  entire  area,  Alaska  excluded,  and  yet 
possesses  forty-six  votes  in  the  Senate.  Recently 
the  conflict  between  a  majority  of  the  Senators 
representing  a  minority  of  the  people,  and  a  mi- 
nority of  the  Senators  representing  a  majority  of 
the  people,  has  had  unpleasant  exhibition.  Will 
such  differences  deepen  or  diminish  as  the  years 
go  on?  Will  the  immense  inequalities  in  terri- 
torial extent,  not  to  speak  of  capacity  for  life 
sustention,  develop  insufferable  inequalities  in 
popular  power?  Or  will  the  future  spirit  of  the 
people  grow  so  strongly  in  the  direction  of  unity 
and  the  higher  life  as  to  render  numerical  and 
physical  differences  of  less  consequence?  These 
are  remote  problems,  subject  for  speculation.     A 


348  CONGRESSIONAL   COMMITTEES. 

strong  bridge  has  the  Senate  been,  at  any  rate, 
suspended  between  the  Old  and  the  New.  None 
other  than  its  mighty  cables  could  have  stood  the 
strain.  Providence  fixed  its  anchorage  over  the 
widest  chasm  and  the  swiftest  rapids  of  change 
that  human  history  knows.  Across  its  narrow 
way  we  still  peer  back  into  the  regions  whence 
we  have  come,  —  see  the  morning  of  the  world, 
the  marches  of  the  Teuton  forests,  Hellenic  tribal 
bounds,  snowy-haired  patriarchs  of  Orient,  the 
solitary  cave-dweller  gazing  out  over  Britain's  un- 
tamed seas. 


APPENDIX  I. 


349 


XI 
Q 

Ph 
Put 


•ssaaowoo  agy 

XV  H0Y3  NO  aaXMJSMH 

-aaa  saxvxs  ao  aauKiitf 

C) 

- 

eo 

»g 

•nova  so  azis  xNasaaj 

tQ 

+ 

9 

t- 

•aaxv 
-aao  nxbm  nova  ao  azis 

t- 

+ 

t~ 

t~ 

1 

O 

6 

aaiv.Mioiao  bohm  as 

9 
ft 

M 

g 
5 
■ 

1 

i 

5 
o 
O 

© 
O 

a 
»     . 

3  .5 

s4 

o  *-" 
O 

8 

« 
d 
o 
® 

1 

a 
a 

o 
Q 

o 

II 

1  si 

a  © 

| 

1 
1 

NOixvaaD  so  saxva 

n 

n 

Si 

< 

a 
s 

3 

2 

eo" 

> 

o 

O 

■ 
Q 

3 

m 

§ 

■ 

I 

3 
1 

II 

10      - 

5  a 

©   o 

5 

Commerce,  Manufactures, 
and    Agriculture    (sub-di- 
vided into  three  committees 
at    16th    Congress  ;    name 
changed   Dec.  16,  1891,  to 
"  Interstate    and    Foreign 
Commerce  "). 

I 

•aoiaaj  nova  ONiana 
saaxxinnoD     ao    sazis 

eo 

CO 

I- 

®    CO 

•aoiaaj  anx  osiaaa 
gaaxxiwwoo  so  aaawnN 

<N 

CI 

co 

o 

•9H8AOH  *o  azis 

8 

8 

8 

s 

•cioiaaci 

IS 

1 

6" 

1 
i 

1 

8 

1 

1 

•ssaaoKOO 

■ 

3 

s 

3 
■* 

350 


APPENDIX  I. 


•saaaoiioo  agg 
xv  hov;j  ko  aaxNasaa 
-aaa  saxvxs  ao  aauwajj 

Is 

- 

|h 

•Hovsr  ao  azis  xNasaaj 

eo 

t- 

o» 

So 

•aaxv 
-aao  kshm  nova  ao  azis 

eo 

■"*■  co 

eo 

t> 

i 

•5 

e 

1 

aaxvKioiao  kohav  xq 

a 
o 
© 
© 

a 
a 

o     . 

O      00 

z,  © 

©  M 

OD 

o 

•9  ce 

-w  .2 
°% 

-w  a 
c  a 
©  5 

5  P* 
5 

o 

5  .5 

•2& 

O 
>> 

5    c« 

.11 

^    © 

0D 

I 

i 

1 

P 

•NOixvaao  ao  saxva 

g 

©' 
© 
Q 

| 

© 

00 

> 

© 

© 

(5 

i 
I 

•s 

1 

1 

Revisal  and  Unfinished  Busi- 
ness (name  changed,  July 
25,  1868,  to  "  Revisal  of  the 
Laws  "). 

Ways  and  Means  (Off-shoots, 
Mar.  2, 1865,  were  Appropri- 
ations, Banking  and   Cur- 
rency, Pacific  Railroad). 

■u 

a 
a 

8 

© 

1  i 

o   © 

s  ° 

Si 

.2* 

a  »-« 
P* 

9 

•aoiaaj  hovb  ouiana 
Baaxxifunoo    ao    sazis 

52  « 

3  *-" 

eo 

8» 

co 

eo 

° 

•noiaaj  anx  ONiaaa 
saaxxiwwoo  ao  aaaKfljj 

(P 

CO 

(0 

-j 

t- 

oo 

•sasooH  ao  azis 

3 

I 

S 

- 

o 

1 

CO 

•<* 

•aoiaaj 

i 

1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

8 
ao 

i 

1 

•B9aaoNOO 

i 

* 

* 

« 

I 

APPENDIX  I. 


351 


|£e 


3S 


a  gg 

O    S 


""I 

•3!> 


a  * 

—  - 

03 


5 

W    . 

•3 


3       . 


a 


E^fl 


°  *«  2  _,  ® 


22 


•O    s    C    oo 


©    B    be         a 


O    00 


jfcj   « 

a 

(0 
ngre 
883). 

m    o   '-' 

08 

snditure 
14th    C 
Dec.  19, 

00 

I 

5 

fit 
6 
Q 

a 

o. 

■a 

I 

*  -e  13 

a 

w  rt  j§ 

a 

-5 

a       a? 

CO    t» 

—       * 

ublic 
shoo 
Abo] 

i 

a    1  02 

a  «m 

•c 

x  o 

Ph 

S 

W 

352 


APPENDIX  I. 


XT  H0Y3  NO  QaXN393H 

-daa  saxvxs  ao  HaawaK 

. 

- 

- 

. 

. 

Sh 

m  E"1 

+ 

co  H 

•Hova  ao  bzis  XKtasaaa 

t- 

t~ 

«> 

t> 

ifl 

ifl 

i  Q 

•aaxv 
-aao  KaHA  Hova  ao  azis 

co 

co 

CO 

CO 

t- 

t- 

t> 

t> 

| 

1 

1 

•aaxYKioiao  kohm.  *a 

O 

u 
© 
M 

o 

*i 
I? 

O 

u 

© 

M 

© 

H   * 

&i 

o 

O 

h 

© 

© 
s     . 

si 

©■£ 

3 
M 
o 
p 

H 

(D 

M 

0 

© 

6 

a 
g 

0 

© 

5 

§1 

1 1 

i  s 

•«    o 

h3 

o 

©      ri 

1  I 
a  © 

CO 

a 

o 
© 
© 

s 

o    . 

O     CO 

©  " 

«3 

CO 

B 

! 

a 

o 
O 

•NOixraao  ao  saxva 

00 

c« 

oo 

8 

a 

00 

CO 

00 

8 

a 

S3 

OJ 

00 

oo 

© 
© 

00 

© 
© 

i 

CO 

c« 

3 

I 

CO 

I 

1 

i 

« 

1 

id 

CD 

1 

1 

1 

© 
© 

i 

2 

CD 
O 

i 

q 

'3 

«> 

3 

0 

0 
A 
0 

CO 

© 
© 

3 

a 

e8 

3 

© 

E 

3 

« 

bo 
<< 

go 

E 

3 

g 
a 

f 

H 

2 

s 

a 

s 

i 

§ 

•aoiaaj  Hova  osisna 
saaxxiKHOD    ao    sazis 

co 

CO 

co 

co 

•aoiaaa  aHX  ONiaaa 
saaxxiKWOO  ao  aaawiiN 

8 

8 

a 

•sasnoH  ao  azis 

s 

GO 

00 

3 

•aoiaaa 

oo 

2 

oo 

2 

OO 
t> 

00 

g 

oo 

1 

7 

1 

•ssaaoNOO 

1H 

i 

1 

s 

APPENDIX  I. 


353 


(N 

eO 

1H 

1" 

SS 

1 

jl 

« 

■ 

S 

- 

IS 

a 

et0 

IS 

3 

eo 

eo 

l« 

t~ 

t~ 

l> 

t- 

t- 

t- 

o> 

IQ 

IQ 

a 
o 

£      £      * 

6 

O 

o 

o 

§ 

a 

o 

a> 

g  «3 

a 

g 

8 

<0 

© 

§«■& 

8 

to 

a 

5 

© 

a 

o  a  5  ^ 

O 

a 
2  4 

i 

M 

*  a 

1 

5 
1 

i 

~ 

02    o 

2  4 

^'H 

—    - 

S 

a 

o     . 

JSh?» 

3 -si 

2  S 

>< 

H-a 

■  t 

o    . 

02    .  rt    • 

« s  §  I 

1 1 

a* 

.2  P 
u 

s  © 

©  "3 
a,  hh 

©  " 

02 

^ 

Oh 

•"3 

►a 

o 

05 

02 

02 

§ 

§ 

| 

IS 

s 

1 

§ 

| 

$ 

i-( 

co 

CO 

CO 

O 

IQ 

O 

lO 

IS 

tH 

*■* 

rH 

la 

e3 

3 

© 

© 

9 

y 

© 
© 

© 

s 

s 

Q 

Q 

•^ 

Q 

q 

02 

02 

*?  ©  i  o 

o  a   o  _-  S 
4   <  S  1  1 

©   o 

a  **  ^ 

OS      -  s 

4 

£ 

90 

'3 

«  05  W  A 

*  £  -         © 

5,8  » 
.  -  s 

2  °  a 

2 
o 

3 

> 

a 

1 
I 

§  &"    8-  * 

H  a  ®  03  . 
«  o  S   a  "- 

£  - 1  a  1 

>>  3  •©  £>   2 

♦»       ©  >>  cu 
:a  *»  .a  ** 

3j 
o 

a 
•2 

*00 

1 
ft® 

s 

"3 

55  a.  3 

HI 

x  a  c« 
1J* 

ej 

a 
© 

I 

1 
© 

3 

a 

O     ©    - 

a 

H 

« 

S 

2h 

Ph 

n 

eo 

eo 

CO 

so 

H 

eo 

co 

to 

o 

■o 

I- 

t~ 

i- 

t~ 

t~ 

of 

oT 

cT 

& 

oo 

8 

£5 

8 

?o 

co 

s 

H 

rt 

(N 

1 

c* 

CM 

~i 

!N 

M 

94 

(N 

§ 

Si 

a 

s 

| 

8 

8 

I 

S3 

i 

i 

00 

S 

a 

^ 

S 

§ 

" 

rt 

^ 

1-1 

t-( 

L4 

A 

^ 

JJ 

g 

J3 

B 

|s 

5 

^ 

IN 

S3 

ii 

9i 

s 

354 


APPENDIX  I. 


xr  nova  no  aaxxasaa 
-jaa  saxvxs  ao  aaarenN 


•nova  ^o  azis  XNtaeaaj 


•aaxr 
-sso  nshm.  nova  ao  azis 


aaxYNioiao  kohai  ah 


03 

d  3> 


.2  O 


•KOIXYBSO  ^O  8KXYQ 


aoiaaj  hoys  ONiana 
saaxxiNNoo    ao    sazis 


a 

'§  2 

A3 

a  O 

«   o 


B    V 


£  c 

B  a? 

S  60 

o  a 

o  3 

CO 


MftM 
B    G,     . 

&   ce  to 

S    £?^ 


g    6 

B    r« 


B  ~ 

■s » 


§   « 


I! 


•noiaaj  aHx  ONiana 
saaxxiwKOO  ao  aaaKiiK 


•sasnoH  ao  azis 


•aoiaaj 


•ssaaoNoo 


APPENDIX  I. 


355 


L+H 


+  H 


•  a 


±q 


-a  £ 
o  M 


8 

02    o 


H 
O 

O      . 

JO 

03    © 

Si 

CO 


5  £ 

as 


«■    o 


1 

J3 

OS     03 

«s 

3  -< 


I  S 

is 

5  ►. 
a>  £i 


5| 

o  M 

w  1 


a  S  *  9 

=  —       o 

OH®    . 


■      1*1 

*    .  »  a  ^ 

« a  i^^ 
■sf  8.11 

3  Soa  a  a 


£ 

| 

i* 

8 

■o  •: 

•d 

>, 

If 

9 

a 

<B 

a  a 
s  2 

1 

bf> 

•d 

■ 

| 

o 
E 

11 

* 

1 

60 

"5 

T3    ^ 

a  a 

a  £ 

o  a 

a, 
o 

s 

B 

a 

1 

«a 

oS 

W 

o 

< 

« 

s 

2 

j|* 

eS   v 

a  "9 
« .2 

P 


8  9 


.a  i.a  i,a 

iili 


356 


APPENDIX  I. 


•99SaDHOO  dgff 

iv  H0V3  ko  aaxMasaa 

s 

CO 

-«iaa  saxvxs  ao  aaarenN 

•hove  ao  azis  xtiasaaa 

eo 

t- 

eo 

•aaxv 

-aao  K3HM.  Hova  jo  azis 

a 

w 

2  -*~ 

d 
o 
© 

<4-l 
O 

1 

i 
5 

1 

a 

2 
3    c8 

•aaxvKiorao  kohav  ia 

ames   A. 
of  Ohio, 
1866. 

a 

o     . 

5tf 

^1 

11 

1 

"i 

02 

« 

i 

§. 

s 

£ 

35 

•KOixraao  jo  saxva 

53 

CO 

rH 

© 

o 

S 

C$ 

1 

U 

a 

"a 

(5 

I 
1 

4 

52.  S 

s 

I? 

fc  - 

o 
■ 

a 

^ 

I 

o  & 

ft 

+» 

0) 

s 

u 

0) 

•£  9 

a 

<d 

> 

3 

i 

I 

33 
si 

^    . 
fl  .2 
«   a 

8  & 

>    oJ 
•J   o 

2 

i 

"S 

3 
■ 

i 

*  2 

3  ^, 
£    O 

l! 

a 

a 

■ 

8 

** 

u    > 

©  Si 

0) 

1 

II 

&  a 

.2  "S 

► 

J 

W 

H 

>5 

eo 

IO 

lO 

r>    . 

~  ± 

•aoiaaj  nova  omana 

•« 

a  w 

CO 

•a 

saaxxiwwoo    ao    sazis 

oT 

a  w 

a"" 

a  t-- 

•aoiaaj  bhx  eurana 
saaxxiHHOD  ao  aaawnN 

9 

9 

9 

H 

3 

9 

•saaaoH  ao  azis 

B 

I 

1 

52 

i 

•H 

ft 

oo 

1 

§ 

& 

•saoiaaj 

g 

* 

g 

\ 

4 

ft 

s 

rH 

A 

«* 

£ 

•ssaaonoo 

I 

■ 

5 

% 

3 

18 

APPENDIX  I. 


357 


h 

t- 

1* 

- 

© 

2 

t- 

eo 

t~ 

' 

eo 

t- 

lO 

eo 

t- 

9 

=  1 

as 

Is 

©    w 

►9 

3  s 

G    © 
0    - 

1  i 

©    03      . 

.5  j:  & 

li 

3  » 

09 
© 

« 

o 
© 

© 

1 
i 

00   _* 
©  T3 

.a  a 

.     ©    rl 

S           c8 

O    «M     M 

i 
5 

i 

8 

1 
1 

1 

8 

d 

© 

i 

eo 

1H 

tab 

3 

«4 

o 

1 

E 

! 

W 
•o 

1 

8 
© 

3 

& 

l 

© 

! 
3d 

1 
S© 

*   bo 

S3 

11 

i 

8 

© 

.2 

♦a 

.9 

I 

© 

15,  13, 
11,7, 
5,3+ 

m  t>  + 

rf*£4 

-  »h  t-  eo 
io 

eo"  oT  io 
jo-  S  *-"  & 

eo*  oT  io 

"■'     H          -    + 

^^  t-  eo 

eg  oT  « 

**  ,-T  io 

9 

5 

9 

3 

3 

58 

8 

a 

1 

8 

eo 

§ 

1 

s 

s 

1 

1 

1 

i 
1 

1 

1 
§8 

1 

V 

i 

i 

1 

i 

II 

11 

II 

II 

i 

2 

358 


APPENDIX  I. 


•ssaaoKoa  aes 

« 

_ 

xt  hoys  no  aaiMagaa 

j5 

»- 

2  ■ 

s 

-aaa  saxvxs  ao  aaawriN 

. 

1 

•Hoyg[  ao  azis  XNasaaj 

n 

t> 

a 

eg 

a 

OS 

0 

•aaxy 

co 

t~ 

rt 

CO 

rt 

a 

-aao  NaHiUHora  ao  azis 

** 

C5 

£*-" 

©  g 

© 

a 

t. 

oT 

©  cs 

a! 

9 

© 

O  © 

1° 

a   "? 

fc  f  & 

0  00 

c 

E 

c 

© 
© 
ft 

* 

"p 

c 
c 

a 

Ph 
§ 

•aaxyKiorao  kohm.  a.a 

-     rl 

S3    S    ^ 

© 

On   £ 

is 

B 

0 

©    H 

ffl  a" 

© 

© 

'1 

© 
© 

a 

O    «M     00 
©Or-. 

'«  'S  O 
©    O    O 

£ 

•    eS 

1 

s 
0 

© 

« 

£ 

S  ~ 

0 

0 

w 

eo 

CO 

a 

co 

1- 

10 

08 

8 

So 

1 

| 

1 

1      ' 

•noixvaao  ao  saxva 

00 

oo 

00 

X 

00" 

b- 

t- 

tp 

bb 

ab 

M 

(MO 

© 

i 

P 

a 

P 

a 

© 

^ 

•* 

«5 

-1 

<* 

fi 

S 

©    eS 

c3 

0  -£ 

N 

i 

s 

g 

©    © 

<»  __ 

00 
© 

CO 

0 
© 

< 

© 

1 

H 
h 

O 

P 

.2* 

CO 

a 

i 

c 

a 

K 

9 

a 

d 

CO* 

6 

0  a 
© 

g 
0 

3 
© 

O 

s 

0 

en 

5  'S    • 

5    $    <D 

©  ti  > 

Is 

g 
© 

*o 

r| 

O 

I 

c4 
E 

ts 

S  .2 
S  a 

a 

9 

| 
© 

®  Ph  "5 

« 

E 

i 

© 

H 

r> 

3 

H 

s 

w 

10"  a  1 

•aoiaaa  hot^  omana 

1-1  '"",  »o 

saaxxiHHOo    ao    sazis 

*.-  a  »: 

'"        oT 

•ooiaaj  anx  OMiana 

s 

t- 

saaxxiwwoo  ao  aaawntf 

10 

•sasaoH  ao  azis 

1 

1 

i 

i 

•aoiaaj 

1 

i 

5 

ssaaoNOO 

1 

s 

APPENDIX  II.  359 


APPENDIX   II. 

CLASSIFICATION  OF  COMMITTEES. 

A.  —  Legislative  Department. 

I.   Exclusive  Affairs  of  the  House : 

1.  Elections,  Apr.  13,  1789. 

2.  Accounts,  Nov.  7,  1804. 

3.  Mileage,  Sept.  15,  1837. 

4.  Rules,  Dec.  27,  1849;  Mar.  2,  1880. 

5.  Ventilation  and  Acoustics,  Aug.  18,  1893. 

II.   Joint  Affairs  with  Senate: 

1.  Enrolled  Bills,  July  27,  1789. 

2.  Library,  Dec.  7.  1843. 

3.  Printing,  July  24,  1846. 

B.  —  Judicial  Department.     Judiciary,  June  3,  1813. 

C.  —  Executive  Department. 

Expenditures  in : 

1.  Department  of  State,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

2.  Department  of  Treasury,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

3.  department  of  War,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

4.  Department  of  Navy,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

5.  Department  of  Post-Office,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

6.  Public  Buildings,  Mar.  30,  1816. 

7.  Department  of  Interior,  Mar.  16,  1860. 

8.  Department  of  Justice,  Jan.  16,  1874. 

0.   Department,  of  Agriculture,  Dec.  20, 1889 


360  APPENDIX  II. 

D.  —  Private  Legislation. 

1.  Claims,  Nov.  13,  1794. 

2.  War  Claims,  Dec.  22,  1813. 

3.  Private  Land  Claims,  Apr.  29,  1816. 

4.  Pensions,  Dec.  9,  1825. 

5.  Invalid  Pensions,  Jan.  10,  1831. 

6.  Patents,  Sept.  15,  1837. 

E.  —  Public  Legislation. 

I.   Financial: 

1.  Ways  and  Means,  Dec.  21,  1795. 

2.  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures,  Jan.  21, 1864. 

3.  Appropriations,  Mar.  2,  1865. 

4.  Banking  and  Currency,  Mar.  2,  1865. 

II.   Industrial : 

1.  Commerce,  Dec.  14,  1795. 

2.  Manufactures,  Dec.  8,  1819. 

3.  Agriculture,  May  3,  1820. 

4.  Railways  and  Canals,  Dec.  15,  1831. 

5.  Pacific  Railroads,  Mar.  2,  1865. 

6.  Mines  and  Mining,  Dec.  19,  1865. 

7.  Levees  and  Improvements  of  the  Mississippi 

River,  Dec.  10,  1875. 

8.  Rivers  and  Harbors,  Dec.  20,  1883. 

9.  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries,  Dec.  21, 1887. 
10.   Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  Aug.  18,  1893. 

III.  Law: 

1.  Revisal  of  the  Laws,  Dec.  14*1795. 

2.  Election  of    President,   Vice-President,   and 

Representatives,  Aug.  18,  1893. 

IV.  Public  Property: 

1.  Public  Lands,  Dec'  17,  1805. 

2.  District  of  Columbia,  Jan.  27,  1808. 


APPENDIX  II.  361 

3.  Post-Offices  and  Post-Roads,  Nov.  9,  1808. 

4.  Territories,  Dec.  13,  1825. 

5.  Public  Buildings  and  Grounds,  Sept.  15, 1837. 

V.    War: 

1.  Military  Affairs,  Mar.  13,  1822. 

2.  Naval  Affairs,  Mar.  13,  1822. 

3.  Militia,  Dec.  10,  1835. 

VI.   Social: 

1.  Indian  Affairs,  Dec.  17,  1821. 

2.  Education,  Mar.  21,  1867. 

3.  Labor,  Dec.  19,  1883. 

4.  Immigration   and   Naturalization,    Aug.   18, 

1893. 

5.  Alcoholic  Liquor  Traffic,  Aug.  18,  1893. 

6.  Reform  in  the  Civil  Service,  Aug.  18,  1893. 

VII.   International: 

1.  Foreign  Affairs,  Mar.  13,  1822. 


362  APPENDIX  III. 


APPENDIX  III. 

RULES   PROPOSED    FOR   THE    PENNSYLVANIA 
ASSEMBLY,    AND    ADOPTED    IN    1703. 

That  any  Member  indecently  carrying  himself  towards  the 
Speaker,  or  any  of  the  Members,  by  Reflections,  or  other  un- 
comely Behavior,  in  the  House,  or  shall  transgress  this  or  any 
of  the  following  Rules,  shall  for  the  first  Offence  be  reproved, 
for  the  second  and  after  fin'd,  as  the  House  thinks  fit,  not 
exceeding  Ten  Shillings. 

That  all  Members,  offering  to  speak,  stand  up  and  direct 
their  Speech  to  the  Chair,  speak  pertinently  to  the  Occasion, 
and  having  ended  to  sit  down  ;  none  to  speak  above  twice 
to  one  Matter  (especially  upon  Bills)  without  Leave  of  the 
Speaker. 

That  none  presume  to  interrupt  another,  nor  offer  to  speak 
until  the  first  sit  down. 

That  the  Members  forbear  talking  to  each  other,  and  keep 
Silence,  unless  they  have  Occasion  to  speak  in  order  as  afore- 
said. 

That  no  Member  endeavour  to  pervert  the  Sense  of  an- 
other's Speech. 

That  the  Speaker  have  Power  to  stop  all  unnecessary,  tedL 
ous,  or  superfluous  Discourse,  and  to  command  Silence  when 
needful. 

That  the  Members  avoid  naming  others  when  they  may 
have  Occasion  to  observe  or  take  Notice  of  their  Speech,  but 
have  respect  to  the  Time  of  their  Speaking,  or  to  the  Seat  they 
have,  as  Right  or  Left  of  the  Chair,  &c. 

That  no  Member  presume  to  go  in  or  out  of  the  House 


APPENDIX  III.  363 

before  the  Speaker,  he  being  present,  nor  depart  the  House 
without  his  Leave. 

That  upon  Debates  and  passing  of  Bills,  the  Majority  of 
Votes  shall  govern,  and  when  the  Votes  of  Members  are  equal 
in  Number,  the  Speaker  shall  have  the  Casting  Vote. 

That  the  Speaker,  with  Consent  of  the  House,  require  any 
Member  offending  to  Stand  at  the  Bar,  and  there  receive  the 
Censure  of  the  House. 

That  no  Member  presume  to  divulge  the  Debates  or  Secrets 
of  the  House. 

That  no  Member,  who  is  against  the  Body  of  a  Bill,  shall 
be  appointed  to  be  of  a  Committee  concerning  that  Bill. 

That  the  Speaker  have  Power  to  nominate  Persons  for 
Committees  ;  and  that  none  who  are  nominated,  refuse  the 
Service  ;  not  that  any  of  the  Members  shall  be  hereby  de- 
barr'd  of  their  Privilege  of  nominating  Persons  if  they  think 
fit,  or  rejecting  such  as  are  by  the  Speaker  nominated  ;  in 
which  Cases  the  Opinion  of  the  House  shall  rule. 

That  Bills  to  be  pass'd  into  Laws,  may  be  brought  in  by 
any  particular  Member,  or  received  by  them,  or  the  Speaker 
from  others,  and  presented  to  the  House,  who  is  to  order  the 
Clerk  loudly  to  read  them  ;  and  after  reading,  to  be  respect- 
fully delivered  to  the  Speaker,  and  him  to  mark  and  note  (by 
Breviate  or  otherwise)  all  Bills,  and  declare  the  Nature  and 
the  Use  of  the  same,  which,  if  not  rejected,  to  cause  to  be 
read  a  second  Time,  and  after  deliberate  consideration  thereon, 
and  Amendments  made,  if  needful,  cause  it  to  be  read  a  third 
Time,  and  drawn  fair,  and  sent  to  the  Governor,  as  the  House 
shall  think  fit,  for  his  Assent,  or  Rejection;  but  that  no  Bill 
be  read  twice  in  one  Day,  except  on  extraordinary  Occasions. 

That  at  the  first  Reading  of  Bills,  the  Members  avoid  any 
close  Debate,  and  seriously  deliberate  on  the  Contents,  in 
order  to  their  better  Information  before  the  second  Reading. 

That  all  Questions  put  by  the  Speaker  to  know  the  Mind  of 
the  House  by  Vote,  be  answered  by  the  Members  standing  up, 
and  saying  Yea,  or  Nay,  as  they  shall  see  meet. 

That  if  it  shall  at  any  time  happen,  that  a  Debate  prove 


364  APPENDIX  III. 

tedious,  and  any  four  Members  shall  stand  up,  and  request 
the  Speaker  to  put  the  Matter  in  Debate  to  the  Vote,  he  shall 
not  refuse  it. 

That  after  the  Meeting  of  an  Assembly,  the  Regularity  of 
Elections  being  first  inspected,  Committees  shall  be  appointed 
on  the  several  Occasions  of  their  Sessions,  so  far  as  they  have 
Knowledge  thereof,  wherein  the  Command  of  the  Crown  shall 
be  preferred,  and  next  that  of  the  Governor  :  after  which,  in- 
spection shall  be  made  into  the  Law  for  Safety  of  the  Govern- 
ment, and  Preservation  of  Liberty  and  Property  ;  next  of 
Grievances  ;  of  publick  and  private  Bills  ;  of  Petitions  &c.  in 
Course. 


APPENDIX  IV.  365 


APPENDIX  IV. 

COMMITTEES   IN  STATE  LEGISLATURES  AND 
MUNICIPAL    COUNCILS. 

Though  little  more  can  be  done  in  this  connection,  the 
mere  calling  of  attention  to  a  field  so  rich  and  so  important 
should  not  be  without  value.  The  United  States  has  a  hundred 
State  legislative  chambers,  each  with  its  own  parliamentary 
rules.  Comparative  study  of  these  collections  by  legislators 
should  do  much  to  raise  the  standard  of  lawmaking.  They 
have  not  even  been  brought  together  in  a  single  compilation. 
A  series  of  historical  monographs  devoted  to  State  legislatures 
might  set  forth  intelligently  the  merits  and  defects  of  the  va- 
rious systems,  and  point  out  the  true  lines  of  advance.  States 
should  know  themselves,  and  study  their  neighbors.  Some  of 
our  Commonwealths  are  much  richer  in  wise  methods  than 
others,  but  none  will  be  found  so  poor  as  to  have  nothing  to 
give. 

These  parliamentary  codes  may  be  assigned  to  three  main 
categories  :  those  of  the  original  Atlantic  seaboard  States  ; 
those  of  the  Southern  and  Middle-West  States  wbichwere  ad- 
mitted to  the  Union  prior  to  1861  ;  those  of  the  Western 
States  which  have  come  in  since  1861.  The  influence  of  the 
Congressional  procedure  upon  the  three  groups  and  upon  the 
several  States  that  compose  them  varies  both  as  to  degree  and 
as  to  the  stage  of  its  own  development  at  the  time  that  each 
first  drew  from  its  store.  The  customs  and  rules  of  Western 
legislatures  may  also  be  traced  back  directly  to  such  older 
bodies  as  those  of  Virginia,  Pennsylvania,  and  Massachusetts. 
There  is,  besides,  the  valuable  sphere  of  original  and  special 


366  APPENDIX  IV. 

developments,  the  product  of  a  thousand  blending  causes. 
Ignorance  and  common  sense  have  each  played  their  parts. 
So  have  physical  conditions,  industries,  and  population.  So 
have  differences  in  State  constitutional  provisions;  e.g.,  the 
lengths  of  sessions,  or  the  salaries  of  the  legislators.  Our 
examination  of  the  national  procedure  has  emphasized  the 
importance  of  the  legislative  chamber's  size  and  of  the  amount 
of  its  business  as  bearing  upon  its  legislative  methods.  What 
differences,  much  wider  than  actually  exist,  ought  to  be  ex- 
pected between  the  two  neighboring  Commonwealths  whose 
early  antagonisms  are  so  interesting,  the  simple,  agricultural 
Vermont,  and  New  York,  the  Empire  State,  with  five  times 
the  area,  with  great  cities  and  vast,  varied  industries.  Ver- 
mont has  thirty  Senators  ;  New  York,  fifty.  New  York  has 
one  hundred  and  fifty  Kepresentatives  ;  Vermont,  two  hundred 
and  forty-four.  With  Senates  of  about  equal  sizes,  New 
Jersey  has  a  House  of  sixty  members,  and  New  Hampshire  a 
House  of  three  hundred  and  fifty-eight.  By  so  much  as  the 
duties  of  a  State  legislature  differ  from  those  of  a  national 
Congress,  by  so  much  ought  it  to  display  independence  and 
self-reliance  in  the  manner  of  grappling  with  legislative  tasks. 
As  typical  to  an  extent  of  the  three  groups  indicated,  take 
Massachusetts,  Illinois,  and  Wyoming.  Massachusetts  builds 
upon  a  fine  experience  of  near  three  centuries,  a  comparatively 
slow  and  therefore  healthy  development  from  the  simplest  to 
the  most  intricate  governmental  forms.  Her  General  Court 
inherits  the  characteristics  of  the  town-meeting.  By  frequent 
amendment  and  revision  she  has  kept  her  legislative  procedure 
up  to  date,  conserving  and  more  perfectly  securing  those  vital 
ideas  of  equality,  order,  fitness,  and  economy  which  shine  in 
her  early  history.  Her  joint  committee  system  saves  time  and 
expense,  divides  business  equally  between  the  two  branches, 
and  minimizes  the  liability  to  misunderstandings  between 
them.  For  a  number  of  reasons  it  is  more  practicable  in  a 
State  than  in  the  national  legislature.  Maine  and  Connecti- 
cut follow  the  mother  Commonwealth  in  this  respect.  The 
rules  are  nicely  adapted  to  local  requirements.     There  are  no 


APPENDIX  IV.  367 

surplus,  ornamental,  or  vote-catching  committees  in  the  Mas- 
sachusetts list  of  thirty-three.  The  idea  of  equality  appears 
in  their  uniformity  of  size  and  in  the  equal  distribution  of 
committee  positions,  with  hardly  an  exception  three  to  each 
Senator  and  one  to  each  Representative.  Bills  are  considered 
in  the  strict  order  of  their  introduction,  saving  only  when 
a  four-fifths  vote  directs  otherwise.  Individual  rights  are 
guarded  without  stinting  power  to  the  Speaker,  who  stands  for 
order  and  unity.  Upon  its  passage  a  bill  incurs  frequent  in- 
spection. When  it  is  introduced,  the  House  Speaker  or  the 
Senate's  Committee  on  Rules  passes  upon  its  merits  ;  when  it 
nears  the  end  of  its  journey,  committees  on  third  reading  and 
on  engrossed  bills  are  its  censors.  The  jurisdiction  of  the 
finance  committees  as  against  those  for  general  legislation  is 
defined  at  length.  The  House  of  Representatives  divides  itself 
into  four  sections,  for  each  of  which  the  Speaker  appoints  two 
lieutenants  or  monitors,  who  take  the  number  of  votes,  or  of 
members  present,  for  the  chair,  and  assist  him  in  preserving 
order.  If  their  authority  is  defied,  they  report  to  the  House, 
which  may  see  fit  to  deprive  an  unruly  member  of  his  right 
to  vote  or  to  speak.  These  monitors  and  certain  committee 
chairmen  sit  in  seats  specially  assigned  to  their  offices.  While 
a  bill  is  under  discussion,  the  chairman  of  the  committee 
from  which  it  comes  controls  the  time,  and  allots  it  to  the  de- 
baters. Altogether  there  is  probably  not  a  legislative  system 
among  the  forty-five  more  worthy  of  emulation  than  that  of 
the  old  Bay  State. 

Illinois,  like  other  great  central  States,  North  and  South, 
inherits  the  framework  of  a  parliamentary  code  and  practice 
from  times  and  conditions  not  the  most  favorable  for  a  begin- 
ning. In  1818  the  backwoodsmen  of  French  Kaskaskia  had 
small  store  of  experience,  and  maybe  but  one  exemplar  in  the 
way  of  books,  the  journals  and  annals  of  Congress.  Appended 
to  the  former  they  fortunately  —  or  unfortunately  —  found  the 
rules  of  the  national  House,  from  which  both  chambers  clipped 
out  blocks  of  regulations  almost  word  for  word.  The  develop- 
ment of  Illinois  has  been  in  many  respects  even  more  rapid 


368  APPENDIX  IV. 

and  extreme  than  that  of  the  nation  at  large.  Between  1818 
and  1869  the  number  of  Senators  in  her  legislature  increased 
from  fourteen  to  fifty-one  ;  the  number  of  Representatives 
from  twenty-seven  to  one  hundred  and  fifty-three.  The  first 
assembly  represented  some  fifty-five  thousand  Southern  farmer 
folk  ;  men  are  yet  living  who  remember  it,  and  contrast  with 
its  simple  day  this  present  time,  when  the  interests  of  the 
third  State  in  the  Union  and  of  the  next  to  the  greatest  city 
in  the  New  World  are  dependent  upon  action  at  Springfield. 
Results  are  such  as  are  to  be  expected  from  such  conditions. 
In  the  outset  disrespect  and  disregard  for  the  collection  of 
rules  were  bred  by  its  ill-adaptation.  Its  accumulation  has 
kept  pace  with  the  swift  growth  of  the  State.  The  printed 
regulations  are  feebly  connected  with  the  actual  practice. 
The  House  list  of  fifty-eight  standing  committees  surpasses  in 
distortion  that  of  the  United  States  Senate.  The  committees 
range  in  size  all  the  way  from  seven  to  thirty-five  men,  and 
furnish  an  average  of  twelve  places  to  each  legislator,  not  to 
speak  of  a  fairy  labyrinth  of  nooks  for  petty  political  hench- 
men. As  a  general  result,  power  centralizes  in  the  hands  of 
a  few  men,  who  are  law  unto  themselves.  Legislative  reform 
is  needed  in  the  Mississippi  Valley. 

Of  Wyoming  little  may  be  said  save  that  she  has  made  a 
beginning,  and,  with  the  showing  of  her  journals  as  compared 
with  the  earliest  journals  of  older  States,  a  fair  one.  Modern 
conditions  have  put  well  within  her  reach  the  ripened  ex- 
perience of  Eastern  Commonwealths  and  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment, from  which  she  has  judiciously  selected  a  code. 
Combining  the  old  and  the  new,  her  parliamentary  authorities 
are  Jefferson's  Manual  and  Reed's  Rules.  History  will  not 
belie  itself,  if,  with  such  opportunities,  the  new  States  of  the 
Louisiana  Purchase  furnish  advanced  lessons  in  legislative 
methods. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


369 


COMMITTEES  OF  THE   MASSACHUSETTS  LEGISLATURE. 

Senate  :  Judiciary,  Ways  and  Means,  Bills  in  the  Third  Reading, 
Engrossed  Bills  (three  members  each) ;  Rules  (the 
President  and  four  members). 

House  :  Judiciary  (nine) ;  Ways  and  Means  (eleven) ;  Bills  in 
the  Third  Reading,  Engrossed  Bills,  Pay  Roll  (three 
each) ;  Elections  (seven) ;  Rules  (the  Speaker  and 
eight  others). 

Joint:  Agriculture,  Banks  and  Banking,  Cities,  Constitutional 
Amendments,  Counties,  Drainage,  Education,  Elec- 
tion Laws,  Federal  Relations,  Fisheries  and  Game, 
Harbors  and  Public  Lands,  Insurance,  Labor,  Libra- 
ries, Liquor  Law,  Manufactures,  Mercantile  Affairs, 
Military  Affairs,  Parishes  and  Religious  Societies, 
Printing,  Prisons,  Probate  and  Insolvency,  Public 
Charitable  Institutions,  Public  Health,  Public  Ser- 
vice, Roads  and  Bridges,  State  House,  Taxation, 
Towns,  Water  Supply  (each  consisting  of  three  Sen- 
ators and  eight  Representatives) ;  Metropolitan  Af- 
fairs, Railroads,  Street  Railways  (each  consisting  of 
four  Senators  and  eleven  Representatives). 

committees  of  exactly  the  same  names  in  lists  of 
massachusetts.  illinois.  and  wyoming. 

Agriculture,  Education,  Elections,  Federal  Relations, 
Judiciary,  Printing,  Railroads,  Rules. 

OTHER   COMMITTEE   NAMES. 


California  :  Culture  and  Improvement  of  the  Grape  Vine. 

Colorado  :  Stock. 

Connecticut  :  Temperance ;  Woman's  Suffrage ;  Manual  and 

Roll. 

Florkda  :  Mining  and  Phosphate. 

Illinois  :  Fees  and  Salaries ;  Building,  Loan,  and  Home- 

stead Associations;  History,  Geology,  and 
Science;  Horticulture;  Miscellaneous  Sub- 
jects;   Parks  and  Boulevards;    State  and 


370 


APPENDIX  IV. 


County  Fairs ;  Rights  of  the  Minority ;  Ju- 
dicial Apportionment;  Congressional  Ap- 
portionment ;  Senatorial  Apportionment. 

Indiana:  Sinking  Fund;  Rights  and  Privileges  of  In- 

habitants of  the  State ;  Natural  Gas. 

"Iowa:  Medicine,    Surgery,   and    Pharmacy;    Text- 

Books;  Telegraphs  and  Telephones;  Par- 
dons; Police  Regulations. 

Kentucky:  Propositions  and  Grievances;   Religion  and 

Morals. 

Maine  :  Leave  of  Absence ;  Change  of  Name ;  County 

Estimates ;  Interior  Waters. 

Michigan  :  Executive  Business ;  University ;  Lumber  and 

Salt. 

Minnesota:  Forestry    and    Fire   Protection;    Grain    and 

Warehouse;  Illuminating  Oils;  Logs  and 
Lumber;  Binding  Twine  and  Manufacture 
of  the  same ;  Local  Bills ;  Crimes  and  Pun- 
ishments. 

Mississippi:  Levees. 

Nebraska  :  Common  Schools. 

New  Hampshire  :  Journal  of  the  House ;  Mileage ;  Normal 
Schools. 

New  Jersey  :  Riparian  Rights. 

New  York  :  Codes ;  Electricity,  Gas  and  Water  Supply. 

Pennsylvania  :  Centennial  Affairs ;  Iron  and  Coal  Companies ; 
Bureau  of  Statistics ;  Pensions  and  Gratui- 
ties ;  Vice  and  Immorality. 

Texas  :  Frontier  Protection. 

Vermont:  Governor's  Messages;   Grand  List;  Distrib- 

uting (Pub.  Docs.). 

Washington  :  Harbors  and  Harbor  Lines ;  State  Tide  Lands. 

Wyoming  :  Lands  and  Irrigation ;  Corporations ;  Arbitra- 

tion ;  Immigration ;  Memorials  to  Congress. 


APPENDIX  IV. 


371 


COMPARISON  OF  THREE   MUNICIPAL  COUNCIL  COMMITTEE 
U8T8. 


Minneapolis, 

Worcester, 

Atlanta, 

Minn. 

Mass. 

Ga. 

Ways  and  Means. 

Finance. 

Finance. 

Salaries. 

Salaries. 

Claims. 

Claims. 

Contested  Claims 
and  Litigation. 

Taxes. 

Tax. 

Licenses. 

Bonds  of  City  Offi- 

cers. 

Accountsof  CityOffi- 

cers. 

Public  Grounds  and 

Public  Buildings. 

Public  Buildings  and 

Buildings. 

Grounds. 

Roads  and  Bridges. 

Highways  and  Side- 
walks. 

Parks. 

Street    Grades    and 

Assessm'ts  for  Street 

Streets. 

Additions. 

Betterments. 

Bridges. 

Fire  Department. 

Fire  Department. 

Fire  Department. 
Fire  Masters. 

"Waterworks. 

Water. 

Waterworks. 

Gas. 

Lighting  Streets. 

Electric  Lights,  Tele- 
graph, and  Tele- 

Underground Wires. 

phones. 

Sewers. 

Sewers. 
Assessments  for  Sew- 

Sewers and  Drains. 

Markets. 

ers- 

Printing. 

Printing. 

Printing. 

Railroads. 

Electric    and    other 
Railroads. 

Police. 

Police. 
Military  Affairs. 

Police. 

Paving. 

Health    and    Hospi- 

Sanitary Affairs. 

tals. 

Cancellation. 

372 


APPENDIX  IV. 


COMPARISON  OF  THREE  MUNICIPAL  COUNCIL   COMMITTEE 
LISTS.  —  Continued. 


Minneapolis, 
Minn. 

worcesteb, 
Mass. 

Atlanta, 
Ga. 

Ordinances. 

Ordinances. 

Ordinances  and  Le- 

Bethany Home. 

Rules. 

Charities. 

gislation. 
Relief. 

Cemetery. 

Manufacturers,  Sta- 
tistics, Freight 
Rates  and  Trans- 
portation. 

Prisons. 

Public  Works. 

Public  Improvem'ts. 

Education. 

Schools. 
Minutes. 

Mayor's  Inaugural, 
and  Unfinished 

Business. 

Enrollment. 

Bills  in  the  Second 

Reading. 
Elections  and  Re- 

turns. 

APPENDIX   V.  373 


APPENDIX  V. 

THE   FINANCIAL    COMMITTEES    OP    CONGRESS. 

The  development  of  our  national  finances  as  yet  conceals 
itself  for  the  most  part  in  the  pages  of  a  thousand  dusty  vol- 
umes. A  single  comparison  of  extremes  suffices  to  show  the 
great  scope  of  the  subject.  There  was  but  one  general  appro- 
priation bill  in  1789.  Its  thirteen  modest  lines  authorized  the 
expenditure  of  six  hundred  and  thirty-nine  thousand  dollars. 
To-day  an  expert  clerk  may  require  an  hour  and  a  half  to  read 
to  the  House  one  of  the  fourteen  bills,  and  its  bristling 'items 
may  carry  a  sum  total  larger  than  all  of  the  national  outlay 
during  Washington's  Presidency. 

Notwithstanding  this  vast  difference,  threads  of  continuity 
bind  together  the  first  bill  and  the  latest.  The  development 
of  the  one  into  more  than  a  dozen  has  been  logical.  Some 
items  in  our  tariff  and  appropriation  measures  are  survivals 
from  the  days  when  Congress  sat  in  New  York  City.  The 
framers  of  the  Wilson  Bill  looked  back  to  the  McKinley  Bill, 
and  the  framers  of  the  Dingley  Bill  back  to  the  Wilson  Bill. 

In  our  government,  as  in  others  of  the  world,  the  initial 
steps  of  appropriation  fall  to  the  Executive.  Those  who  are 
engaged  in  the  activities  of  administration  best  know  its  needs, 
and,  voluntarily  or  by  requirement,  furnish  to  the  legislative 
holders  of  the  purse  the  information  which  serves  as  a  basis 
for  supply.  .Besides  two  score  large  volumes  of  general  infor- 
mation, the  appropriation  committees  annually  receive  the 
so-called  Book  of  Estimates.  With  the  opening  of  the  fiscal 
year  in  July,  bureau  clerks  begin  to  collect  the  facts  for  this 
important  manual.  Gradually  each  head  of  a  Department 
compiles  them  into  a  report,  which  he  sends  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury.     The  Treasury  Department  digests  them  further 


374  APPENDIX  V. 

until  they  take  final  shape,  and  places  the  completed  Book  of 
Estimates  in  Mr.  Speaker's  hands  when  Congress  meets. 

The  compact  columns  of  this  book  exhibit  clearly  and  mi- 
nutely each  object  of  appropriation,  with  the  volume,  the  page, 
and  the  section  of  the  laws,  that  sanction  the  expenditure. 
They  present  the  totals,  and,  side  by  side  with  them  for  com- 
parison, the  totals  for  the  preceding  year.  They  include  fine 
print  explanatory  notes  by  the  various  officers,  where  changes 
are  asked  for,  and  are  supplemented  by  a  text  of  written  ex- 
planations and  an  index. 

Step  by  step,  with  unceasing  effort,  Congress  has  worked 
out  a  system  of  limitations  upon  expenditure  by  the  Execu- 
tive. In  the  earlier  years  appropriations  were  made  in  gross. 
The  bill  of  1789  contained  but  four  items,  —  for  civil  expenses, 
for  military  expenses,  for  payment  of  the  public  debt,  and  for 
pensions.  A  statute  of  our  time  requires  that  each  section  of 
a  bill  "  shall  contain  as  nearly  as  may  be  a  single  proposition 
of  enactment,"  and  the  number  of  sections  is  legion.  Among 
others  two  prime  abuses  have  been  corrected.  For  a  long 
while  the  Executive  could  transfer  an  appropriation  from  the 
object  for  which  it  was  made  to  some  other  object.  These 
transfers  have  been  forbidden  by  statutes  of  1809  and  1868. 
The  second  evil  was  the  accumulation  of  unexpended  balances 
in  the  various  departments.  By  a  law  of  1870  such  sums,  to 
the  enormous  amount  of  one  hundred  and  seventy-four  million 
dollars,  were  covered  into  the  treasury.  All  balances  must  now 
be  reported  annually,  and  after  two  years  ^returned  to  the  gen- 
eral public  funds. 

The  century-long  process  of  an  increasing  membership  and 
an  increasing  budget  has  required  an  increasing  number  of 
workmen  for  preparation  of  the  financial  bills.  In  Washing- 
ton's time  the  Ways  and  Means  controlled  the  entire  field  of 
finances  in  the  House  of  Kepresentatives.  Before  the  Civil 
War  came,  it  had  consigned  its  jurisdiction  over  private  relief 
bills  to  the  Claims,  the  War  Claims,  the  Pensions,  and  the  In- 
valid Pensions.  It  gave  over  the  entire  subject  of  expenditure 
to  the  newly  created  Appropriations  in  1865.     Upon  that  oc- 


APPENDIX  V.  375 

casion  Robert  C.  Schenck  suggested  the  distribution  of  the 
Appropriation  Bills  to  the  committees  generally.  This  distri- 
bution came  in  1879  and  1885,  when  the  Appropriations  was 
forced  to  yield  up  eight  of  its  precious  bills,  two  to  the  Military 
Affairs,  and  one  to  the  Agriculture,  the  Foreign  Affairs,  the 
Naval  Affairs,  the  Indian  Affairs,  the  Post-Offices  and  Post- 
Roads,  and  the  Rivers  and  Harbors,  respectively.  The  Ap- 
propriations now  controls  but  sixty  per  cent  of  the  annual 
expenditure,  and  its  share  includes  the  tremendous  but  fixed 
bill  for  pensions.  These  nine  committees  for  public  finances 
have  increased  in  size  each  to  fifteen  or  seventeen  members. 
Their  combined  membership  of  one  hundred  and  forty-seven 
is  about  thirty-two  per  cent  of  the  House  total.  In  its  true 
inwardness  the  entire  movement  has  tended  to  preserve  and 
restore  to  the  Representatives  an  equal  voice  upon  financial 
subjects.  Whereas  formerly  a  sub-committee  of  three  pre- 
pared the  Navy  Bill,  a  full  committee  of  fifteen  now  operates. 
Those  who  raised  the  banner  of  revolt  in  1885  might  well  have 
inscribed  upon  it,  "  No  taxation  without  representation." 

This  same  general  objection  to  the  control  of  the  finances 
by  a  few  men  in  Congress  holds  against  the  preparation  of 
tariff  bills  by  the  commissions  which  have  been  advocated  or 
appointed  ;  they  are  not  truly  representative.  To  be  sure, 
the  peculiar  conditions  which  have  hitherto  tended  to  confine 
the  membership  of  the  Ways  and  Means  so  largely  to  coun- 
try members  have  crippled  its  representative  character.  The 
practical  remedy  has  been  found  and  partly  applied  in  the 
committee  hearing,  which  imperatively  summons  experts  from 
the  great  marts  to  the  doors  of  Congress.  "  The  framing  of 
a  tariff  law,"  says  Robert  P.  Porter,  "  with  all  the  delicate 
questions  of  public  revenue  which  are  interwoven  with  it,  con- 
stitutes the  most  difficult  and  the  most  complicated  problem 
that  statesmanship  has  to  deal  with.  Every  statesman  since 
the  war  who  has  been  called  upon  to  grapple  with  this  ques- 
tion has  either  wrecked  his  party  or  himself,  or  both,  before 
he  was  through  with  the  job." 

The  framing  of  an  appropriation  law  is  also  difficult  enough. 


376  APPENDIX  F. 

Very  wisely,  and  in  face  of  the  spoils  doctrine,  the  House 
and  Senate  Committees  on  Appropriations  retain  year  after 
year  their  ahle  and  experienced  clerks.  The  estimates,  with 
an  abundance  of  other  printed  data,  are  at  hand ;  and  the  com- 
mittees of  both  chambers  profess,  like  the  British  Commons, 
to  rule  out  everything  that  has  not  been  submitted  by  the  Ex- 
ecutive. But  there  are  many  elements  of  uncertainty  that 
require  nice  calculation.  A  percentage  of  the  estimates  must 
be  fixed  upon,  for  they  are  almost  always  too  large.  Upon  a 
general  view  in  1870,  Senator  John  Sherman  enumerated  as 
points  making  for  uncertainty  :  bounties,  the  Indian  service, 
the  call  for  public  works,  Congressional  liberality  or  economy, 
transfers  of  appropriations  from  one  head  to  another,  appro- 
priations for  the  previous  year  remaining  unexpended,  the  man- 
ner of  making  appropriations,  e.g.,  once  for  all,  piecemeal,  or 
by  continuing  contract,  and  the  claims  likely  to  be  allowed 
by  Congress  or  by  the  courts.  "  Under  our  system,"  said  he, 
"  it  would  require  more  than  human  sagacity  to  guess  within 
five  million  dollars  of  our  expenditures  for  the  next  year." 

Passing  from  the  committees,  two  or  three  salient  features 
of  the  treatment  of  the  great  financial  bills  upon  the  legisla- 
tive floor  are  worthy  of  notice.  First  to  be  emphasized  is  the 
growing  use  and  usefulness  of  the  printer's  art.  Take,  for  il- 
lustration, the  enactment  of  the  present  tariff  law.  Ten  thou- 
sand copies  of  the  hearings  before  the  Ways  and  Means  were 
distributed  to  members  of  the  House  and  the  Senate.  Upon 
the  appearance  of  the  bill  in  the  House,  both  the  majority  and 
the  minority  of  the  committee  presented  their  carefully  drawn 
reports.  Five  thousand  copies  of  the  bill  were  published, 
and  five  thousand  copies  of  a  comparison  with  former  tariff 
measures.  Unlimited  leave  to  print  was  granted  to  every 
Representative.  Expert  clerks  of  the  Senate  also  prepared  a 
comparative  statement,  showing  in  parallel  columns,  with  spe- 
cific duties  stated  in  terms  of  ad  valorem,  "  the  law  of  1890, 
known  as  the  McKinley  Act,  the  law  of  1894,  and  the  House 
bill  and  the  Senate  amendments,  with  all  the  rates  respecting 
these  bills."     The  bill  in  full  was  twice  afterward  reproduced 


APPENDIX   V.  877 

in  the  Congressional  Record,  the  first  time  with  its  eight  hun- 
dred amendments,  when  it  had  passed  the  Senate  ;  the  second 
time  with  all  further  changes,  when  it  had  come  out  of  confer- 
ence,—  a  course  which  had  never  been  taken  with  a  conference 
report  before.  If  publicity  be  one  of  the  essentials  of  sound 
finance,  it  here  presents  itself  in  abundant  measure. 

The  right  to  debate  is  an  old-fashioned  essential  of  publi- 
city. There  are  two  kinds  of  debate  in  the  House.  First 
comes  general  debate,  for  which  the  majority  assigned  forty- 
one  hours  upon  the  Dingley  bill.  According  to  custom  one- 
half  of  this  time  was  controlled  by  Chairman  Dingley;  but  the 
majority  yielded  most  of  their  share  to  the  minority,  who  con- 
fined themselves  mainly  to  discussion  of  the  general  princi- 
ples of  Protection  and  Free  Trade.  Usually  the  majority  leader 
opens  general  debate  with  an  explanation  of  the  bill,  and  with 
patient  reply  to  all  inquiries.  The  minority  keeps  its  ablest 
speakers  to  the  last,  and  a  chief  of  the  majority  delivers  the 
closing  argument  in  rebuttal.  Then  follows  the  five-minute 
debate  upon  paragraphs.  For  this  five  days  were  allowed  in 
considering  the  Dingley  tariff.  Each  five-minute  speech  is 
based  upon  a  proffered  amendment. 

The  procedure  of  amendment  is  a  third  salient  feature  in 
the  treatment  of  financial  bills.  In  the  House  it  has  come 
about  that  few  amendments  succeed  except  those  which  are 
presented  or  accepted  by  the  committee  that  has  originated 
the  money-bill  under  consideration.  An  early  victory  of  the 
committees  over  would-be  amenders  lay  in  the  adoption  of  the 
rule  that  an  amendment  could  be  laid  upon  the  table  without 
prejudice  to  the  main  question.  Amendment  of  the  financial 
bills  is  a  particularly  delicate  matter  because  of  their  peculiar 
characteristics.  One  of  the  canons  of  parliamentary  law  de- 
clares that  no  bill  shall  relate  to  more  than  one  subject,  and 
that  this  shall  be  expressed  in  its  title.  Many  States  have  in- 
serted this  in  their  Constitutions,  with  or  without  express  ex- 
ception of  appropriation  bills.  From  the  necessities  of  the 
case  each  one  of  these  huge  bills  is  more  or  less  of  an  omni- 
bus, with  all  of  the  lurking  temptations  that  such  measures 


378  APPENDIX   V. 

are  known  in  history  to  have  presented  to  the  legislator.  Our 
entire  expenditures  are  divided  into  two  classes,  those  which 
are  regularly  reviewed  by  the  Congressional  committees  every 
year,  and  those  which  are  made  payable  by  statutes  that  re- 
main unchanged  during  considerable  periods.  The  ratio  be- 
tween the  two  at  different  stages  of  our  Government's  progress 
is  of  interest,  and  the  comparative  value  of  the  methods  has 
been  a  subject  of  debate.  The  appropriations  belonging  to  the 
latter  class  —  now  decreased  to  less  than  one-third  —  cause 
little  or  no  trouble.  The  bulk  of  those  in  the  former  and 
larger  class  is  very  unequally  divided  into  fourteen  sums,  that 
range  from  not  quite  half  a  million  to  more  than  one  hundred 
and  forty  million  dollars.  Appropriation  bills  vary  in  charac- 
ter, not  only  among  themselves,  but  from  year  to  year.  The' 
history  of  any  one  of  them  can  never  be  surely  predicted. 
Some  pass  into  laws  before  the  holiday  recess,  and  without 
change  of  a  cent  from  the  original  estimate  or  the  original 
amount  fixed  by  the  House  committee  ;  others  drag  on  in  fierce 
contests,  and  die  in  the  feverish  closing  hours  of  an  out-going 
Presidential  Administration. 

The  demand  or  the  necessity  for  change,  for  increase  or 
decrease  of  expenditures,  has  been  one  disturbing  element; 
and  another  has  been  the  effort  to  fasten  upon  these  all-im- 
portant bills  measures  that  cannot  succeed  save  as  riders.  To 
separate  the  sphere  of  appropriation  and  the  sphere  of  general 
legislation  has  often  been  difficult.  In  construing  the  House 
rules  for  the  amendment  of  money  bills,  the  Speaker  and  the 
Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  have  often  found 
exercise  for  the  finest  subtleties  of  logic.  There  have  been  no 
contests  over  the  legislative  code  sharper  than  those  which 
have  centered  around  what  is  now  clause  two  of  Rule  XXI. 
Formerly  this  clause  included  the  "  Holman  Amendment" 
(q.v.,  p.  179),  as  a  substitute  for  which  such  Republican  lead- 
ers as  Reed  and  Garfield  at  one  time  supported  a  rule  permit- 
ting amendment  of  an  appropriation  bill  by  striking  out  any 
sum  of  money  and  inserting  a  less  sum. 

A  measure  tacked  to  an  appropriation  bill  by  one  House, 


APPENDIX   V.  379 

for  the  compulsion  of  the  other,  is  properly  termed  a  rider. 
When  a  number  of  members  in  one  of  the  chambers  combine 
to  insert  in  block  their  several  pet  measures,  the  process  is 
called  log-rolling.  Long  before  a  bill  comes  from  its  com- 
mittee the  log-roller  may  be  forming  combinations  for  its 
alteration.  A  favorite  scheme  of  his  has  been  to  secure  con- 
sideration for  it  in  the  secret  party  caucus.  River  and  Harbor 
bills,  and  bills  charged  with  the  granting  of  public  buildings, 
have  been  most  susceptible  to  such  blackmail.  A  measure 
loaded  down  and  passed  by  log-rollers  violates  that  old  parlia- 
mentary principle  which  forbids  interested  members  from  vot- 
ing upon  legislative  subjects.  Log-rolling  has  been  flagrant  in 
the  House  because  the  Representative  depends  upon  a  small  con- 
stituency, which  has  often  been  willing  to  exploit  the  rest  of  the 
country  for  its  own  selfish  ends.  How  can  we  fuse  into  this 
popular  body  an  element  which  will  represent  territorial  areas 
larger  than  the  ordinary  Congressional  district  ?  At  least  one 
member  at  large  from  each  State  could  easily  be  provided  for 
by  a  slight  change  of  statute  law.  There  is  a  participator  in 
lawmaking  who  stands  for  a  constituency  broad  as  the  Union; 
tli<>  often-advocated  extension  of  the  President's  veto  to  the 
items  of  appropriation  bills  would  be  a  death  blow  to  log-rolling. 

While  the  House  committees  sometimes  suffer  at  the  hands 
of  House  amenders,  their  formidable  enemies  are  in  array  at 
the  other  extremity  of  the  Capitol.  The  Senate  committees, 
the  Finance  and  the  Appropriations,  do  not  wait  for  the  com- 
ing of  the  money-bills  from  the  lower  branch,  but  take  them 
up  for  consideration  as  soon  as  they  emerge  from  the  docu- 
ment-room. Most  of  the  Senate  changes  are  wrought  out  in 
the  guarded  committee-room,  not  upon  the  open  floor.  In  the 
conference  the  Senate  is  on  the  aggressive,  the  House  on  the 
defensive. 

A  general  view  of  the  public  finance  usually  discovers  the 
House,  the  Senate,  and  the  Executive  each  struggling  for  its 
rights  or  for  advantage  over  its  fellows.  By  delay  the  House 
reduces  the  Senate's  opportunity  for  changing  the  money-bills, 
and  by  delay  the  Senate  retaliates  in  kind.     Between  them 


380  APPENDIX  V. 

they  have  often  forced  the  President  to  the  alternative  of 
signing  or  vetoing  a  complex  measure  which  he  has  never 
read.  In  1837  John  Quincy  Adams  originated  a  rule  which 
required  the  Ways  and  Means  of  the  House  to  report  the  ap- 
propriation bills  within  thirty  days  after  the  opening  of  a  ses- 
sion ;  but  his  rule  was  a  dead  letter  from  the  beginning,  and 
has  long  since  disappeared.  The  second,  or  the  short  regular 
session  of  Congress  has  suffered  most  from  the  evil  of  delay. 
An  equitable  division  of  legislative  time  among  the  House,  the 
Senate,  and  the  President  is  needed.  To  lengthen  the  short 
session  by  pushing  it  back  into  November,  or  to  convene  the 
committees  long  before  its  December  opening  day,  would 
afford  relief. 

The  date  upon  which  a  tariff  law  shall  go  into  effect  is  an 
important  consideration.  The  farther  it  is  put  from  the  hour 
when  the  propositions  of  the  Ways  and  Means  become  public, 
the  more  the  nation's  commercial  interest  may  be  disturbed, 
and  the  more  the  government's  revenues  may  be  deranged  and 
crippled  by  anticipatory  importations.  Chairman  Dingley  es- 
timated that  anticipatory  importations  would  cut  down  the 
revenue  from  his  bill  forty  million  dollars  during  the  first  year 
of  its  operation.  He  inserted  a  retroactive  clause  which  failed 
of  enactment.  The  English  practice  might  suggest  for  our 
government  a  way  out  of  this  difficulty.  In  a  manner  not 
strictly  legal,  the  Administration  there  takes  the  responsibility 
of  levying  the  newly  suggested  duties  as  soon  as  they  are  re- 
ported from  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  to  the  House 
of  Commons.  There  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  a  general 
and  independent  statute  might  not  impose  like  action  upon 
our  customs  officers. 

Petty  juggling  with  the  appropriation  bills  has  found  oppor- 
tunity in  the  fact  that  a  Congress  does  not  meet  until  more 
than  a  year  after  it  is  elected.  If  a  party  be  dethroned  by  the 
fall  elections,  it  can  so  manipulate  the  appropriations  in  its 
final  session  of  power  as  to  throw  some  of  its  own  budgetary 
expenses  forward  into  succeeding  years. 

How  far  do  the  financial  methods  of  Congress  measure  up 


APPENDIX   V.  381 

to  the  true  standards  of  economy?  The  question  is  often 
asked  and  variously  answered.  The  Republican  dubs  his 
Democratic  friend  a  "  cheese-parer,"  and  the  Democrat  routs 
his  Republican  friend  upon  the  issue  of  the  "billion-dollar 
Congress."  Certainly,  in  the  light  of  recent  experiences,  we 
need  some  of  that  wise  legislation  and  administration  which, 
ages  ago  and  in  another  civilization,  eked  out  by  seven  plente- 
ous years  seven  that  were  lean  and  hungry.  While  fixed  re- 
sponsibility and  concerted  action  in  budgetary  business  have 
not  been  as  positive  as  they  should  be,  their  operation  has 
perhaps  been  underestimated.  Say  what  its  leaders  will,  the 
House  of  Representatives  is  mainly  accountable.  Congress- 
men have  been  inaugurating  a  practice  of  reviewing  the 
financial  conduct  of  each  session  as  it  draws  to  a  close.  The 
Secretary  of  the  Senate  and  the  Clerk  of  the  House  are  re- 
quired to  compile  and  publish  at  that  time  tabular  statements 
exhibiting  the  history  of  all  the  appropriation  bills,  the  new 
offices  created,  and  the  new  or  increased  salaries.  In  these 
closing  days,  the  great  parties  mutually  criticise  each  other's 
financiering,  and  many  a  parliamentary  thunderstorm  clears 
the  atmosphere  of  indirection.  But  more  of  intelligent  plan- 
ning, more  of  general  counsel  among  the  great  House  chairmen 
and  among  the  administrative  chiefs,  are  needed  for  the  legisla- 
tive beginnings.  As  for  the  final  regulative  power,  the  words 
of  a  high  authority  upon  finance  will  bear  repetition  :  "  The 
rules  of  budgetary  legislation  are  serviceable  in  keeping  admin- 
istration within  limits;  but  prudent  expenditure,  productive  and 
equitable  taxation,  and  due  equilibrium  between  income  and 
outlay,  will  only  be  found  where  responsibility  is  enforced  by  the 
public  opinion  of  an  active  and  enlightened  community." 

The  First  General  Appropriation  Bill,  September  29,  1789. 

AN  ACT  making  appropriations  for  the  service  of  the  pres- 
ent year. 

Section  1.  Be  it  enacted,  etc.,  That  there  be  appropriated 
for  the  service  of  the  present  year,  to  be  paid  out  of  the  mon- 
ies which  arise  either  from  the  requisitions  heretofore  made 


382  APPENDIX  V. 

upon  the  several  States  or  from  the  duties  on  import  and  ton- 
nage, the  following  sums,  viz.  :  A  sum  not  exceeding  two 
hundred  and  sixteen  thousand  dollars  for  defraying  the  ex- 
penses of  the  civil  list  under  the  late  and  present  Government ; 
a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and  thirty-seven  thousand 
dollars  for  defraying  the  expenses  of  the  Department  of  War  ; 
a  sum  not  exceeding  one  hundred  and  ninety  thousand  dollars 
for  discharging  the  warrants  issued  by  the  late  board  of  treas- 
ury, and  remaining  unsatisfied ;  and  a  sum  not  exceeding  ninety- 
six  thousand  dollars  for  paying  the  pensions  to  invalids. 

Development  of  the  General  Appropriation  Bills. 

I.     Act  making  appropriations  for  the  support  of  the  Govern- 
ment, Sept.  29,  1789. 

A.  Military  and  Naval  Establishments  Bill,  1794. 

1.  "Naval  Establishment  Bill  (now  called  Navy), 

1799. 

2.  Military    Establishment     Bill     (now     called 

Army),  1799. 
a.   Fortifications,  1823. 
6.   Pensions,  1826. 

c.  Military  Academy,  1834. 

d.  Indian,  1837. 

B.  Civil  and  Diplomatic  Expenses  Bill,  1794. 

1.  Post-Office,  1844. 

2.  Diplomatic  and  Consular,  1856. 

3.  Sundry  Civil,  1856. 

a.  •  District  of  Columbia,  1880. 

4.  Legislative,  Executive,  and  Judicial,  1856. 

a.   Agricultural,  1880. 

C.  Rivers  and  Harbors,  1826. 

Special  Order  of  the  House  for  its  First  Consideration  of  the 
Dingley  Tariff  Bill. 

Resolved,  That  on  and  after  Monday,  March  22,  1897,  and 
until  the  final  vote  on  the  bill  hereinafter  mentioned  shall 
have  been  taken,  the  House  shall  meet  on  each  legislative  day 
at  10  o'clock,  a.  m.  ;  that  on  each  of  said  days  immediately 
after  the  reading  of  the  Journal  the  House  shall  resolve  itself 


APPENDIX  V.  383 

into  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union 
for  consideration  of  the  bill  (H.  R.  379)  to  provide  revenue 
for  the  Government  and  to  encourage  the  industries  of  the 
United  States  ;  that  general  debate  shall  continue  on  said  bill 
during  each  day  until  5  o'clock,  p.  m.,  and  at  evening  sessions, 
to  which  a  recess  shall  be  taken,  to  be  held  from  8  o'clock  till 
11  o'clock,  r.  m.,  until  and  including  Thursday,  the  25th  day  of 
March,  unless  sooner  concluded;  that  from  the  conclusion  of 
general  debate  until  the  31st  day  of  March  there  shall  be  de- 
bate upon  the  said  bill  by  paragraphs,  and  during  this  time 
the  bill  shall  be  open  to  amendment  as  each  paragraph  is  read, 
but  committee  amendments  to  any  part  of  the  bill  shall  be  in 
order  at  any  time  ;  that  not  later  than  Wednesday,  the  31st 
day  of  March,  at  3  o'clock,  p.  m.,  the  said  bill,  with  all  amend- 
ments that  shall  have  been  recommended  by  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  House  on  the  State  of  the  Union,  shall  be  re- 
ported to  the  House,  and  the  previous  question  shall  then  be 
considered  as  ordered  on  said  amendments  and  said  bill  to  its 
engrossment,  third  reading,  and  final  passage,  and  on  a  motion 
to  reconsider  and  lay  on  the  table. 

General  leave  to  print  remarks  on  said  bill  is  hereby 
granted,  to  continue  for  twenty  days  after  the  final  vote  of 
the  House  thereon. 

Special  Order  of  the  House,  July  8,  1897,  obviating  Reference 
of  the  Dingley  Bill  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means. 

Resolved,  That  upon  the  adoption  of  this  resolution  it 
shall  be  in  order  to  move  to  nonconcur  in  gross  in  the  Senate 
amendments  to  House  bill  No.  379,  and  agree  to  a  committee 
of  conference,  asked  for  by  the  Senate,  on  the  disagreeing 
votes  of  the  two  Houses  ;  and  the  House  shall,  without 
further  delay,  proceed  to  vote  upon  said  motion  ;  and  if  the 
said  motion  prevail,  a  committee  of  conference  shall  be  ap- 
pointed, without  instructions,  and  said  committee  shall  have 
authority  to  join  with  the  Senate  committee  in  renumbering 
the  paragraphs  and  sections  of  said  bill  when  finally  agreed 
upon. 


384  APPENDIX  V. 


Special  Order  of  the  House  for  Consideration  of  the  Appropria- 
tion Bills  that  had  failed  in  the  Fifty-fourth  Congress. 

Resolved,  That  on  Friday,  March  19,  1897,  immediately 
after  the  adoption  of  this  rule,  the  House  shall  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  the  bill  (H.  R.  16)  making  appropriations  for 
sundry  civil  expenses  of  the  Government  for  the  fiscal  year 
ending  June  30,  1898,  and  for  other  purposes  ;  that  said  bill 
shall  be  considered  under  the  rules  governing  general  debate 
during  the  said  day  for  not  exceeding  forty  minutes  ;  that  at 
the  conclusion  of  such  general  debate  the  bill  shall  be  read  in 
extenso  ;  that  the  previous  question  shall  then  be  considered 
as  ordered  on  the  bill  to  its  final  passage  ;  that  after  the  final 
vote  thereon  the  House  shall  proceed  to  the  consideration  of 
the  bill  (H.  R.  14)  making  appropriations  for  the  Department 
of  Agriculture  for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1898  ;  that 
said  bill  shall  be  considered  under  the  rules  governing  general 
debate  during  the  said  day  for  not  exceeding  forty  minutes  ; 
that  at  the  conclusion  of  such  general  debate  the  bill  shall  be 
read  in  extenso  ;  that  the  previous  question  shall  then  be  con- 
sidered as  ordered  on  the  bill  to  its  final  passage  ;  that  after 
the  final  vote  thereon  the  House  shall  proceed  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  bill  (H.  R.  15)  making  appropriations  for  the 
current  and  contingent  expenses  of  the  Indian  Department 
and  for  fulfilling  treaty  stipulations  with  various  Indian  tribes 
for  the  fiscal  year  ending  June  30,  1898,  and  for  other  pur- 
poses ;  that  said  bill  shall  be  considered  under  the  rules  gov- 
erning general  debate  during  the  said  day  for  not  exceeding 
forty  minutes  ;  that  at  the  conclusion  of  such  general  debate 
the  bill  shall  be  read  in  extenso ;  that  the  previous  question 
shall  then  be  considered  as  ordered  on  the  bill  to  its  final 
passage  ;  and  that  this  order  shall  continue  from  day  to  day 
until  all  of  the  bills  herein  mentioned  are  disposed  of." 


APPENDIX   V. 


385 


l 

i 

CD 
© 
CO 

iH 

o 

CO 

3fl 

Amount  Ap- 
pbopbiated 

FOB  THE 

Fiscal  Yeab 

8". 

§ 

J 

Oft 

HaUP 

1 

MM 

• 

^  \1 

a 

Ppg 
2«g 

•°§ 

1 

M 

a 
o 

r                                                                                      -\ 

8 

W5 

a! 

1 

M    O    M    M    M    N            00    *J    «    «    N    t-    CS 

go 

8i 

C3  <M 

OBJ 

NNNNNNNN 

«  as  as  OS  K  as 

gas 

SgaaA,! 

f     .    .    .     . 

May  12,  1879 
Aug.   5,  1882 
Mar.   3,  1883 
Mar.    3,  1««5 
Mar.   2,  1889 
July  19,  1892 
Mar.   3,1893 
July  26,  1894 

w  | 

B 

1 

1 

•s 

go 

i 

i 
l 

Hi 

o 

£§ 
©  5 
g  5 

a  a 

&  s 

H  « 

3  £ 

M   •< 

H 

z; 

H 
0 

Under  the  Navy  Department, 
general  expenses. 

Pay  of  the  Navy. 
Pay  of  officers  on  sea-duty;  officers  on  shore 
and  other  duty ;  officers  on  waiting-orders;  offi- 
cers on  the  retired  list;  clerks  to  commandants 
of  yards  and  stations;  clerks  to  paymasters  at 
yards  and  stations;  general  storekeepers;  re- 
ceiving-ships and  otlier  vessels;  extra  pay  to 
men  re-enlisting  under  honorable  discharge; 
interest  on  deposits  by  men ;  pay  of  petty  offi- 
cers, seamen,  landsmen,  and  boys,  including 
men  in  the  engineers'  force,  and  for  the  Coast 
Survey  Service  and  Fish  Commission,  eight 
thousand  two  hundred   and  fifty  men,  and 
seven  hundred  and  fifty  boys,  at  the  pay  pre- 
scribed by  law. 

Note.  — The  foregoing  estimate  is  made  upas 
f  ollow8 :  — 
Pay  of  1,494  officers  of  the  active  list,  #3,404,950. 
Pay  of  300  naval  cadets  under  instruction, 
#150,000.    Etc.,  etc. 

386 


APPENDIX   V. 


Chronological  History  of  Appropriation  Bills,  Second  Session  of 

Fiscal  Year  1897-1898;  and  Appropn- 

Note.  —  River  and  Harbor  Appropriations  were  included  in  the  Sun- 


E8TI  MATES, 


Repobted  to  the 
Douse. 


Passed  the  House. 


Date. 


Amount. 


Agriculture.    .    . 

Army 

Diplomatic  and  Con 

sular     .... 
District  ot  Columbia 
Fortifications  .    . 

Indian 

Legislative,    Execu 

tive,  and  Judicial 

Military  Academy 


Navy 

Pension    .... 

Post-Office   .    .    . 
River  and  Harbor 
Sundry  Civil    .    . 
Total.    .    .    . 
Urgent  Deficiency,  -\ 
Navy,  etc.     .    .    | 
Deficiency, 1897,and  j 
prior  years     .    .  J 

Total 

Miscellaneous .    .    . 

Total  regular  an. 

appropriations, 

Permanent     annual 

appropriations  .    . 


2,385,742.00 

23,892,307.65 

2,082,728.76 
8,686,616.38 
15,815,256.00 

7,279,525,87 

22,767,150.80 

521,812.83 

34,215,936.19 

141,328,580.00 

97,515,411.15 

100,000.00 

58,805,812.81 


415,396,880.44 


15,500,000.00 


430,896,880.44 
2,000,000.00 


432,896,880.44 
120,078,220.00 


1897 
Jan.  13 


Jan.  26 
Jan.  28 
Feb.  10 
Jan.  14 

1896 
Dec.  15 

Dec.  17 
1897 

Feb.  20 
1896 

Dec  7 
1897 

Feb. 10 


f 

3,152,752.00 

23,126,344.30 

1,675,908.76 
5,780,811.06 
9,178,325.00 
7,525,691.67 

21,642,369.80 

489,572.83 

32,165,234.19 

141,263,880.00 

95,611,714.22 


1897 
Jan.  30 

1896 
Dec.  17 

1897 
Feb.   2 
Feb.   6 
Feb.  11 
Jan. 28 

1896 
Dec.  22 

1897 
Jan. 11 

Feb.  23 
1896 

Dec.  8 
1897 

Feb  12 


Feb.  11 


Dec.  19 

1897 
Feb.  18 


50,664,743.92 


392,277,347.75 

881,862.71 

8,441,029.43 


Feb.  15 


Dec.  19 

1897 
Feb.  22 


401,600,239.89 


Grand  Total  .    .  I  552,975,100.44 


3,155,702.00 

23,126,344.30 

1,672,708.76 
5,788,811.06 
9,253,325.00 
7,424,609.09 

21,641,369.80 

474,572.83 

32,165,234.19 

141,263,880.00 

95,535,338.75 

50,664,743.92 


392,166,639.70 

881,862.71 

8,442,027.85 


401,490,530.26 


APPENDIX   V. 


387 


the  Fifty-fourth  Congress;  Estimates  and  Appropriations  for  the 
ations  for  the  Fiscal  Year  1896-1897. 

dry  Civil  and  Urgent  Deficiency  Bills  to  the  amount  of  $22,878,053.16. 


RXFOXTXO  TO  TUK 

SENATE. 

Passed  the  Senate. 

Law,  1897-1898. 

Law,  1896-4897. 

Date. 

Amount. 

Date. 

Amount. 

Date.           Amount. 

Amount. 

1897 

8 

1897 

% 

1897 

f 

# 

Feb.  9 

3,212,902.00 

Feb.  10 

3,217,902.00 

Vetoed 

3,182,902.00 

3,255,532.00 

Jan.  14 

23,129,344.30 

Jan.  18 

23,129,344.30 

Mar.  2 

23,129,344.30 

23,278,402.73 

Feb.  6 

1,695,308.76 

Feb. 11 

1,695,308.76 

Feb.  20 

1,695,308.76 

1,642,558.76 

Feb.  17 

6,993,677.44 

.Mar.   1 

7,447,727.44 

Mar.  3 

6,187,591.06 

5,900,319.48 

Feb.  26 

9,717,141.00 

Mar.  2 

9,817,141  00 

Mar.  3 

9,517,141.00 

7,377,888.00 

Feb.  12 

7,672,436.89 

Feb. 26 

7,740,680.89 

Vetoed 

7,670,220.89 

7,390,496.79 

Jan.  18 

21,702,254.80 

Jan.  20 

21,712,516.90 

Feb.  19 

21,690,766.90 

21,519,324.71 

Jan.  18 

479,572.83 

Jan.  27 

494,572.83 

Feb.  10 

479,572.83 

449,525.61 

Feb.  27 

35,728,234.29 

Mar.  1 

33,228,234.29 

Mar.  3 

33,128,234.29 

30,562,660.95 

18% 

1896 

1896 

Dec.  15 

141,263,880.00 

Dec.  16 

141,263,880.00 

Dec.  22 

141,263,880.00 

141,328,580.00 

18*17 

1897 

1897 

Feb.  24 

95,835,338.75 

Feb.  27 

95,785,338.75 

Mar.  3 

95,665,338.75 

92,571,564.22 
12,659,550.00 

Feb.  25 

51,827,727.84 

Feb.  27 

52,703,827.84 

Vetoed 

53,030,051.58 

33,096,710.19 

399,257,818.90 

398,236,475  00 

396,640,352.36 

381,033,113.14 

18116 

1896 

1896 

\ 

Dec.  22 

884,885.78 

Dec.  22 

884,885.78 

Dec.  22 

884,885.78 

1      15,341,911.07 

1897 

1897 

1897 

f 

31  ar.  1 

10,334,939.20 

Mar.  2 

11,393,940.16 

Failed 

J 

410,477,643.88 

410,515,300.94 

397,525,238.14 

396,375,024.51 

500,000.00 

416,010.06 

398,025,238.14 

396,791,034.57 

.    . 

.... 

.... 

120,078,220.00 

119,054,160.00 

518,103,458.14 

515,845,194.57 

388  APPENDIX   VI. 


APPENDIX   VI. 

BULES    OP    THE    HOUSE    OP    REPRESENTATIVES. 


FIFTY-FIFTH   CONGRESS. 
Rule  I. 

DUTIES   OF  THE   SPEAKER. 

1.  The  Speaker  shall  take  the  chair  on  every  legislative 
day  precisely  at  the  hour  to  which  the  House  shall  have  ad- 
journed at  the  last  sitting,  immediately  call  the  members  to 
order,  and  on  the  appearance  of  a  quorum,  cause  the  Journal 
of  the  proceedings  of  the  last  day's  sitting  to  be  read,  having 
previously  examined  and  approved  the  same. 

2.  He  shall  preserve  order  and  decorum,  and,  in  case  of 
disturbance  or  disorderly  conduct  in  the  galleries,  or  in  the 
lobby,  may  cause  the  same  to  be  cleared. 

3.  He  shall  have  general  control,  except  as  provided  by 
rule  or  law,  of  the  Hall  of  the  House,  and  of  the  corridors  and 
passages  and  of  the  unappropriated  rooms  in  that  part  of 
the  Capitol  assigned  to  the  use  of  the  House,  until  further 
order. 

4.  He  shall  sign  all  acts,  addresses,  joint  resolutions,  writs, 
warrants,  and  subpoenas  of,  or  issued  by  order  of,  the  House, 
and  decide  all  questions  of  order,  subject  to  an  appeal  by  any 
member,  on  which  appeal  no  member  shall  speak  more  than 
once,  unless  by  permission  of  the  House. 

5.  He  shall  rise  to  put  a  question,  but  may  state  it  sitting; 
and  shall  put  questions  in  this  form,  to  wit :  "  As  many  as 
are  in  favor  (as  the  question  may  be),  say  Aye  ;"  and  after 


APPENDIX   VI.  389 

the  affirmative  voice  is  expressed,  "  As  many  as  are  opposed, 
say  No  ; "  if  he  doubts,  or  a  division  is  called  for,  the  House 
shall  divide  ;  those  in  the  affirmative  of  the  question  shall 
first  rise  from  their  seats,  and  then  those  in  the  negative  ;  if 
he  still  doubts,  or  a  count  is  required  by  at  least  one-fifth  of 
a  quorum,  he  shall  name  one  from  each  side  of  the  question, 
to  tell  the  members  In  the  affirmative  and  negative  ;  which 
being  reported,  he  shall  rise  and  state  the  decision. 

6.  He  shall  not  be  required  to  vote  in  ordinary  legislative 
proceedings,  except  where  his  vote  would  be  decisive,  or 
where  the  House  is  engaged  in  voting  by  ballot ;  and  in  all 
cases  of  a  tie  vote  the  question  shall  be  lost. 

7.  He  shall  have  the  right  to  name  any  member  to  per- 
form the  duties  of  the  Chair,  but  such  substitution  shall  not 
extend  beyond  an  adjournment  :  Provided,  however,  That  in 
case  of  his  illness,  he  may  make  such  appointment  for  a 
period  not  exceeding  ten  days,  with  the  approval  of  the  House 
at  the  time  the  same  is  made  ;  and  in  his  absence  and  omis- 
sion to  make  such  appointment,  the  House  shall  proceed  to 
elect  a  Speaker  pro  tempore,  to  act  during  his  absence. 

•    Rule  II. 

ELECTION   OF   OFFICERS. 

There  shall  be  elected  by  a  viva  voce  vote,  at  the  com- 
mencement of  each  Congress,  to  continue  in  office  until  their 
successors  are  chosen  and  qualified,  a  Clerk,  Sergeant-at- 
Arms,  Doorkeeper,  Postmaster,  and  Chaplain,  each  of  whom 
shall  take  an  oath  to  support  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  for  the  true  and  faithful  discharge  of  the  duties 
of  his  office  to  the  best  of  his  knowledge  and  ability,  and  to 
keep  the  secrets  of  the  House  ;  and  each  shall  appoint  all  of 
the  employees  of  his  department  provided  for  by  law. 

Rule  III. 

DUTIES    OF   THE    CLERK. 

1.  The  Clerk  shall,  at  the  commencement  of  the  first  ses- 
sion of  each  Congress,  call  the  members  to  order,  proceed  to 


390  APPENDIX  VI. 

call  the  roll  of  members  by  States  in  alphabetical  order,  and, 
pending  the  election  of  a  Speaker  or  Speaker  pro  tempore, 
call  the  House  to  order,  preserve  order  and  decorum,  and  de- 
cide all  questions  of  order  subject  to  appeal  by  any  member. 

2.  He  shall  make  and  cause  to  be  printed  and  delivered  to 
each  member,  or  mailed  to  his  address,  at  the  commencement 
of  every  regular  session  of  Congress,  a  list  of  the  reports  which 
it  is  the  duty  of  any  officer  or  Department  to  make  to  Con- 
gress, referring  to  the  act  or  resolution  and  page  of  the  vol- 
ume of  the  laws  or  Journal  in  which  it  may  be  contained,  and 
placing  under  the  name  of  each  officer  the  list  of  reports  re- 
quired of  him  to  be  made. 

3.  He  shall  note  all  questions  of  order,  with  the  decisions 
thereon,  the  record  of  which  shall  be  printed  as  an  appendix 
to  the  Journal  of  each  session  ;  and  complete,  as  soon  after 
the  close  of  the  session  as  possible,  the  printing  and  distribu- 
tion to  Members  and  Delegates  of  the  Journal  of  the  House, 
together  with  an  accurate  and  complete  index  ;  retain  in  the 
library  at  his  office,  for  the  use  of  the  members  and  officers  of 
the  House,  and  not  to  be  withdrawn  therefrom,  two  copies  of 
all  the  books  and  printed  documents  deposited  there  ;  send, 
at  the  end  of  each  session,  a  printed  copy  of  the  Journal 
thereof  to  the  executive  and  to  each  branch  of  the  legislature 
of  every  State  and  Territory  ;  preserve  for  and  deliver  or 
mail  to  each  Member  and  Delegate  an  extra  copy,  in  good 
binding,  of  all  documents  printed  by  order  of  either  House  of 
the  Congress  to  which  he  belonged  ;  attest  and  affix  the  seal 
of  the  House  to  all  writs,  warrants,  and  subpoenas  issued  by 
order  of  the  House,  certify  to  the  passage  of  all  bills  and 
joint  resolutions,  make  or  approve  all  contracts,  bargains,  or 
agreements  relative  to  furnishing  any  matter  or  thing,  or  for 
the  performance  of  any  labor  for  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, in  pursuance  of  law  or  order  of  the  House,  keep  full 
and  accurate  accounts  of  the  disbursements  out  of  the  con- 
tingent fund  of  the  House,  keep  the  stationery  account  of 
Members  and  Delegates,  and  pay  them  as  provided  by  law. 
He  shall  pay  to  the  officers  and  employees  of  the  House  of 


APPENDIX  VI.  391 

Representatives,  the  last  day  of  each  month,  the  amount  of 
their  salaries  that  shall  be  due  them  ;  and  when  the  last  day 
of  the  month  falls  on  Sunday  he  shall  pay  them  on  the  day 
next  preceding. 

Rule  IV. 

DUTIES     OF    THE     SERGEANT-AT-ARMS. 

1.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  to  attend 
the  House  and  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  during  their  sit- 
tings, to  maintain  order  under  the  direction  of  the  Speaker  or 
Chairman,  and,  pending  the  election  of  a  Speaker  or  Speaker 
pro  tempore,  under  the  direction  of  the  Clerk  ;  execute  the 
commands  of  the  House,  and  all  processes  issued  by  authority 
thereof,  directed  to  him  by  the  Speaker  ;  keep  the  accounts 
for  the  pay  and  mileage  of  Members  and  Delegates,  and  pay 
them  as  provided  by  law. 

2.  The  symbol  of  his  office  shall  be  the  mace,  which  shall 
be  borne  by  him  while  enforcing  order  on  the  floor. 

Rule  V. 

DUTIES    OF   THE   DOORKEEPER. 

1.  The  Doorkeeper  shall  enforce  strictly  the  rules  relating 
to  the  privileges  of  the  Hall  and  be  responsible  to  the  House 
for  the  official  conduct  of  his  employees. 

2.  At  the  commencement  and  close  of  each  session  of  Con- 
gress he  shall  take  an  inventory  of  all  the  furniture,  books, 
and  other  public  property  in  the  several  committee  and  other 
rooms  under  his  charge,  and  report  the  same  to  the  House, 
which  report  shall  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Accounts 
to  ascertain  and  determine  the  amount  for  which  he  shall  be 
held  liable  for  missing  articles. 

3.  He  shall  allow  no  person  to  enter  the  room  over  the 
Hall  of  the  House  during  its  sittings  ;  and  fifteen  minutes  be- 
fore the  hour  of  the  meeting  of  the  House  each  day  he  shall 
see  that  the  floor  is  cleared  of  all  persons  except  those  privi- 
leged to  remain,  and  kept  so  until  ten  minutes  after  adjourn- 
ment. 


392  APPENDIX  VI. 

Rule  VI. 

DUTIES   OF   THE    POSTMASTER. 

The  Postmaster  shall  superintend  the  post-office  kept  in 
the  Capitol  for  the  accommodation  of  Representatives,  Dele- 
gates, and  officers  of  the  House,  and  be  held  responsible  for 
the  prompt  and  safe  delivery  of  their  mail. 

Rule  VII. 

DUTIES    OF   THE   CHAPLAIN. 

The  Chaplain  shall  attend  at  the  commencement  of  each 
day's  sitting  of  the  House  and  open  the  same  with  prayer. 

Rule  VIII. 

OF   THE    MEMBERS. 

1.  Every  member  shall  be  present  within  the  Hall  of  the 
House  during  its  sittings,  unless  excused  or  necessarily  pre- 
vented ;  and  shall  vote  on  each  question  put,  unless  he  has  a 
direct  personal  or  pecuniary  interest  in  the  event  of  such 
question. 

2.  Pairs  shall  be  announced  by  the  Clerk,  after  the  comple- 
tion of  the  second  roll-call,  from  a  written  list  furnished  him, 
and  signed  by  the  member  making  the  statement  to  the  Clerk, 
which  list  shall  be  published  in  the  Record  as  a  part  of  the 
proceedings,  immediately  following  the  names  of  those  not 
voting  :  Provided,  That  pairs  shall  be  announced  but  once 
during  the  same  legislative  day. 

Rule  IX. 

QUESTIONS    OF    PRIVILEGE. 

Questions  of  privilege  shall  be,  first,  those  affecting  the 
rights  of  the  House  collectively,  its  safety,  dignity,  and  the 
integrity  of  its  proceedings  ;  second,  the  rights,  reputation, 
and  conduct  of  members  individually  in  their  representative 
capacity  only  ;  and  shall  have  precedence  of  all  other  ques- 
tions, except  motions  to  adjouru 


APPENDIX  VI.  393 


Rule  X. 

OF    COMMITTEES. 

1.  Unless  otherwise  specially  ordered  by  the  House,  the 
Speaker  shall  appoint,  at  the  commencement  of  each  Congress, 
the  following  standing  committees,  viz.  : 

On  Elections,  three  committees,  to  consist  of  nine  members 
each,  to  be  called  number  one  (1),  two  (2),  and  three  (3), 
respectively. 

On  Ways  and  Means,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  Appropriations,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  the  Judiciary,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  Banking  and  Currency,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures,  to  consist  of  seventeen 
members. 

On  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce,  to  consist  of  seven- 
teen members. 

On  Rivers  and  Harbors,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  the  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries,  to  consist  of  thir- 
teen members. 

On  Agriculture,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  Foreign  Affairs,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  Military  Affairs,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  Naval  Affairs,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  the  Post-Office  and  Post-Roads,  to  consist  of  seventeen 
members. 

On  the  Public  Land,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  Indian  Affairs,  to  consist  of  seventeen  members. 

On  the  Territories,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Railways  and  Canals,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Manufactures,  to  consist  of  eleven  members. 

On  Mines  and.  Mining,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Public  Buildings  and  Grounds,  to  consist  of  fifteen 
members. 

On  the  Pacific  Railroads,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  Levees  and  Improvements  of  the  Mississippi  River,  to 
consist  of  thirteen  members. 


394  APPENDIX  VI. 

On  Education,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Labor,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  the  Militia,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Patents,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Invalid  Pensions,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  Pensions,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Claims,  to  consist  of  fifteen  members. 

On  War  Claims,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Private  Land  Claims,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  the  District  of  Columbia,  to  consist  of  fifteen  mem- 
bers. 

On  Revision  of  the  Laws,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Reform  in  the  Civil  Service,  to  consist  of  thirteen 
members. 

On  Election  of  President,  Vice-President,  and  Representa- 
tives in  Congress,  to  consist  of  thirteen  members. 

On  Alcoholic  Liquor  Traffic,  to  consist  of  eleven  members. 

On  Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands,  to  consist  of  eleven  members. 

On  Immigration  and  Naturalization,  to  consist  of  eleven 
members. 

On  Ventilation  and  Acoustics,  to  consist  of  seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  State  Department,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Treasury  Department,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  War  Department,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Navy  Department,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Post-Office  Department,  to  consist 
of  seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Interior  Department,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  Justice,  to  consist  of 
seven  members. 

On  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture,  to 
consist  of  seven  members. 


APPENDIX  VI.  395 

On  Expenditures  on  Public  Buildings,  to  consist  of  seven 
members. 

On  Rules,  to  consist  of  five  members. 

On  Accounts,  to  consist  of  nine  members. 

On  Mileage,  to  consist  of  five  members. 

Also  the  following  joint  standing  committees,  viz. : 

On  the  Library,  to  consist  of  three  members. 

On  Printing,  to  consist  of  three  members. 

On  Enrolled  Bills,  to  consist  of  seven  members. 

2.  He  shall  also  appoint  all  select  and  conference  com- 
mittees which  shall  be  ordered  by  the  House  from  time  to 
time. 

*3.  The  first-named  member  of  each  committee  shall  be  the 
chairman  ;  and  in  his  absence,  or  being  excused  by  the  House, 
the  next-named  member,  and  so  on,  as  often  as  the  case  shall 
happen,  unless  the  committee  by  a  majority  of  its  number 
elect  a  chairman  ;  and  in  case  of  the  death  of  a  chairman,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Speaker  to  appoint  another. 

4.  The  chairman  shall  appoint  the  clerk  or  clerks  of  his 
committee,  subject  to  its  approval,  who  shall  be  paid  at  the 
public  expense,  the  House  having  first  provided  therefor. 

Rule  XI. 

POWERS   AND   DUTIES    OF   COMMITTEES. 

All  proposed  legislation  shall  be  referred  to  the  commit- 
tees named  in  the  preceding  rule,  as  follows,  viz.  :  Subjects 
relating, 

1.  to  the  election  of  members  :  to  the  respective  Commit- 
tees on  Elections  ; 

2.  to  the  revenue  and  the  bonded  debt  of  the  United 
States  :  to  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means  ; 

3.  to  appropriation  of  the  revenue  for  the  support  of  the 
Government,  as  herein  provided,  viz.  :  for  legislative,  execu- 
tive, and  judicial  expenses  ;  for  sundry  civil  expenses  ;  for 
fortifications  and  coast  defenses  ;  for  the  District  of  Columbia  ; 
for  pensions  ;  and  for  all  deficiencies  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Appropriations  ; 


B96  Appendix  vt 

4.  to  judicial  proceedings,  civil  and  criminal  law  :  to  the 
Committee  on  the  Judiciary  ; 

5.  to  banking  and  currency  :  to  the  Committee  on  Banking 
and  Currency  ; 

6.  to  coinage,  weights,  and  measures  :  to  the  Committee 
on  Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures  ; 

7.  to  commerce,  life-saving  service,  and  light-houses,  other 
than  appropriations  for  life-saving  service  and  light-houses  : 
to  the  Committee  on  Interstate  and  Foreign  Commerce  ; 

8.  to  the  improvements  of  rivers  and  harbors  :  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Rivers  and  Harbors  ; 

9.  to  the  merchant  marine  and  fisheries  :  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Merchant  Marine  and  Fisheries  ; 

10.  to  agriculture  and  forestry  :  to  the  Committee  on  Agri- 
culture, who  shall  receive  the  estimates  and  report  the  appro- 
priations for  the  Agricultural  Department ; 

11.  to  the  relations  of  the  United  States  with  foreign 
nations,  including  appropriations  therefor  :  to  the  Committee 
on  Foreign  Affairs  ; 

12.  to  the  military  establishment  and  the  public  defense, 
including  the  appropriations  for  its  support  and  for  that  of  the 
Military  Academy  :  to  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs  ; 

13.  to  the  naval  establishment,  including  the  appropriations 
for  its  support :  to  the  Committee  on  Naval  Affairs  ; 

14.  to  the  post-office  and  post-roads,  including  appropria- 
tions for  their  support :  to  the  Committee  on  the  Post-Office 
and  Post-Roads  ; 

15.  to  the  lands  of  the  United  States  :  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Public  Lands  ; 

16.  to  the  relations  of  the  United  States  with  the  Indians 
and  the  Indian  tribes,  including  appropriations  therefor  :  to 
the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  ; 

17.  to  Territorial  legislation,  the  revision  thereof,  and 
affecting  Territories  or  the  admission  of  States  :  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Territories  ; 

18.  to  railways  and  canals,  other  than  Pacific  railroads  :  to 
the  Committee  on  Railways  and  Canals  ; 


APPENDIX   VI.  397 

19.  to  the  manufacturing  industries  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Manufactures  ; 

20.  to  the  mining  interests  :  to  the  Committee  on  Mines 
and  Mining  ; 

21.  to  the  public  buildings  and  occupied  or  improved 
grounds  of  the  United  States,  other  than  appropriations 
therefor  :  to  the  Committee  on  Public  Buildings  and  Grounds  ; 

22.  to  the  railroads  and  telegraphic  lines  between  the  Mis- 
sissippi River  and  the  Pacific  coast :  to  the  Committee  on 
Pacific  Railroads  ; 

23.  to  the  levees  of  the  Mississippi  River  :  to  the  Commit- 
tee on  Levees  and  Improvements  of  the  Mississippi  River  ; 

24.  to  education  :  to  the  Committee  on  Education  ; 

25.  to  and  affecting  labor  :  to  the  Committee  on  Labor  ; 

26.  to  the  militia  of  the  several  States  :  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Militia  ; 

27.  to  patents,  copyrights,  and  trade-marks  :  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Patents  ; 

28.  to  the  pensions  of  the  civil  war  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Invalid  Pensions  ; 

29.  to  the  pensions  of  all  the  wars  of  the  United  States, 
other  than  the  civil  war  :  to  the  Committee  on  Pensions  ; 

30.  to  private  and  domestic  claims  and  demands,  other  than 
war  claims,  against  the  United  States  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Claims  ; 

31.  to  claims  arising  from  any  war  in  which  the  United 
States  has  been  engaged  :  to  the  Committee  on  War  Claims  ; 

32.  to  private  claims  to  land  :  to  the  Committee  on  Private 
Land  Claims  ; 

33.  to  the  District  of  Columbia,  other  than  appropriations 
therefor  :  to  the  Committee  for  the  District  of  Columbia  ; 

34.  to  the  revision  and  codification  of  the  statutes  of  the 
United  States  :  to  the  Committee  on  the  Revision  of  the 
Laws  ; 

35.  to  reform  the  civil  service  :  to  the  Committee  on  Reform 
in  the  Civil  Service  ; 

36.  to  the  election  of  the  President,  Vice-President,  or  Rep- 


398  APPENDIX   VI. 

resentatives  in  Congress  :  to  the  Committee  on  Election  of 
President,  Vice-President,  and  Representatives  in  Congress  ; 

37.  to  alcoholic  liquor  traffic  :  to  the  Committee  on  Alco- 
holic Liquor  Traffic  ; 

38.  to  the  irrigation  of  arid  lands  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Irrigation  of  Arid  Lands  ; 

39.  to  immigration  or  naturalization  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Immigration  and  Naturalization  ; 

40.  to  ventilation  and  acoustics  :  to  the  Committee  on  Ven- 
tilation and  Acoustics. 

41.  The  examination  of  the  accounts  and  expenditures  of 
the  several  Departments  of  the  Government  and  the  manner 
of  keeping  the  same  ;  the  economy,  justness,  and  correctness 
of  such  expenditures  ;  their  conformity  with  appropriation 
laws  ;  the  proper  application  of  public  moneys  ;  the  security 
of  the  Government  against  unjust  and  extravagant  demands  ; 
retrenchment ;  the  enforcement  of  the  payment  of  moneys 
due  to  the  United  States  ;  the  economy  and  accountability  of 
public  officers  ;  the  abolishment  of  useless  offices  ;  the  reduc- 
tion or  increase  of  the  pay  of  officers,  shall  all  be  subjects 
within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  nine  standing  committees  on 
the  public  expenditures  in  the  several  Departments,  as  fol- 
lows : 

42.  In  the  Department  of  State  :  to  the  Committee  on  Ex- 
penditures in  the  State  Department ; 

43.  In  the  Treasury  Department :  to  the  Committee  on  Ex- 
penditures in  the  Treasury  Department ; 

44.  In  the  War  Department :  to  the  Committee  on  Expen- 
ditures in  the  War  Department ; 

45.  In  the  Navy  Department  :  to  the  Committee  on  Ex- 
penditures in  the  Navy  Department ; 

46.  In  the  Post-Office  Department  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Expenditures  in  the  Post-Office  Department ; 

47.  In  the  Interior  Department  :  to  the  Committee  on  Ex- 
penditures in  the  Interior  Department ; 

48.  In  the  Department  of  Justice  :  to  the  Committee  on 
Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  Justice  ; 


APPENDIX  VI.  399 

49.  In  the  Department  of  Agriculture  :  to  the  Committee 
on  Expenditures  in  the  Department  of  Agriculture  ; 

50.  On  public  buildings  :  to  the  Committee  on  Expendi- 
tures on  Public  Buildings. 

51.  All  proposed  action  touching  the  rules,  joint  rules,  and 
order  of  business  shall  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Rules  ; 

52.  Touching  the  expenditure  of  the  contingent  fund  of 
the  House,  the  auditing  and  settling  of  all  accounts  which 
may  be  charged  therein  by  order  of  the  House  :  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Accounts. 

53.  The  ascertaining  of  the  travel  of  members  of  the  House 
shall  be  made  by  the  Committee  on  Mileage  and  reported  to 
the  Sergeant-at-Arms. 

54.  Touching  the  Library  of  Congress,  statuary,  and  pic- 
tures :  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  the  Library. 

55.  All  proposed  legislation  or  orders  touching  printing 
shall  be  referred  to  the  Joint  Committee  on  Printing  on  the 
part  of  the  House. 

56.  The  enrollment  of  engrossed  bills  :  to  the  Joint  Com.- 
mittee  on  Enrolled  Bills. 

57.  The  following-named  committees  shall  have  leave  to 
report  at  any  time  on  the  matters  herein  stated,  viz. :  The 
Committee  on  Rules,  on  rules,  joint  rules,  and  order  of  busi- 
ness ;  the  Committee  on  Elections,  on  the  right  of  a  member 
to  his  seat ;  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  on  bills 
raising  revenue  ;  the  committees  having  jurisdiction  of  ap- 
propriations, the  general  appropriations  bills  ;  the  Committee 
on  Rivers  and  Harbors,  bills  for  the  improvement  of  rivers 
and  harbors  ;  the  Committee  on  the  Public  Lands,  bills  for 
the  forfeiture  of  land  grants  to  railroad  and  other  corpora- 
tions, bills  preventing  speculation  in  the  public  lands,  and 
bills  for,  the  reservation  of  the  public  lands  for  the  benefit  of 
actual  and  bona  fide  settlers  ;  the  Committee  on  Territories, 
bills  for  the  admission  of  new  States  ;  the  Committee  on  En- 
rolled Bills,  enrolled  bills  ;  the  Committee  on  Invalid  Pen- 
sions, general  pension  bills  ;  the  Committee  on  Printing,  on 
all  matters  referred  to  them  of  printing  for  the  use  of  the 


400  APPENDIX  VI. 

House  or  two  Houses ;  and  the  Committee  on  Accounts,  on 
all  matters  of  expenditure  of  the  contingent  fund  of  the  House. 

It  shall  always  be  in  order  to  call  up  for  consideration  a 
report  from  the  Committee  on  Rules,  and,  pending  the  consid- 
eration thereof,  the  Speaker  may  entertain  one  motion  that 
the  House  adjourn  ;  but  after  the  result  is  announced  he  shall 
not  entertain  any  other  dilatory  motion  until  the  said  report 
shall  have  been  fully  disposed  of. 

58.  No  committee,  except  the  Committee  on  Rules,  shall 
sit  during  the  sitting  of  the  House  without  special  leave. 

Rule   XII. 

DELEGATES. 

The  Speaker  shall  appoint  from  among  the  Delegates  one 
additional  member  on  each  of  the  following  committees,  viz.  : 
Coinage,  Weights,  and  Measures  ;  Agriculture  ;  Military  Af- 
fairs ;  Post-Office  and  Post-Roads  ;  Public  Land  ;  Indian  Af- 
fairs ;  Private  Land  Claims,  and  Mines  and  Mining  ;  and  two 
on  Territories  ;  and  they  shall  possess  in  their  respective  com- 
mittees the  same  powers  and  privileges  as  in  the  House,  and 
may  make  any  motion  except  to  reconsider. 

Rule  XIII. 

CALENDARS  AND  REPORTS  OF  COMMITTEES. 

1.  There  shall  be  three  Calendars  of  business  reported 
from  committees,  viz. : 

First.  A  Calendar  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
on  the  state  of  the  Union,  to  which  shall  be  referred  bills 
raising  revenue,  general  appropriation  bills,  and  bills  of  a 
public  character  directly  or  indirectly  appropriating  money 
or  property. 

Second.  A  House  Calendar,  to  which  shall  be  referred  all 
bills  of  a  public  character  not  raising  revenue  nor  directly  or 
indirectly  appropriating  money  or  property. 

Third.  A  Calendar  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House, 
to  which  shall  be  referred  all  bills  of  a  private  character. 

2.  All  reports  of  committees,  except  as  provided  in  clause 


APPENDIX  VI.  401 

57  of  Rule  XL,  together  with  the  views  of  the  minority,  shall 
be  delivered  to  the  Clerk  for  printing  and  reference  to  the 
proper  Calendar  under  the  direction  of  the  Speaker,  in  accord- 
ance with  the  foregoing  clause,  and  the  titles  or  subjects 
thereof  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal  and  printed  in  the 
Record. 

Provided,  That  bills  reported  adversely  shall  be  laid  on  the 
table,  unless  the  committee  reporting  a  bill,  at  the  time,  or 
any  member  within  three  days  thereafter,  shall  request  its 
reference  to  the  Calendar,  when  it  shall  be  referred  as  pro- 
vided in  clause  1  of  this  rule. 

Rule   XIV. 

OF    DECORUM   AND   DEBATE. 

1.  When  any  member  desires  to  speak  or  deliver  any  mat- 
ter to  the  House,  he  shall  rise  and  respectfully  address  him- 
self to  "  Mr.  Speaker,"  and,  on  being  recognized,  may  address 
the  House  from  any  place  on  the  floor  or  from  the  Clerk's 
desk,  and  shall  confine  himself  to  the  question  under  debate, 
avoiding  personality. 

2.  When  two  or  more  members  rise  at  once,  the  Speaker 
shall  name  the  member  who  is  first  to  speak  ;  and  no  member 
shall  occupy  more  than  one  hour  in  debate  on  any  question  in 
the  House  or  in  committee,  except  as  further  provided  in  this 
rule. 

3.  The  member  reporting  the  measure  under  consideration 
from  a  committee  may  open  and  close,  where  general  debate 
has  been  had  thereon  ;  and  if  it  shall  extend  beyond  one  day, 
he  shall  be  entitled  to  one  hour  to  close,  notwithstanding  he 
may  have  used  an  hour  in  opening. 

4.  If  any  member,  in  speaking  or  otherwise,  transgress  the 
rules  of  the  House,  the  Speaker  shall,  or  any  member  may, 
call  him  to  order;  in  which  case  he  shall  immediately  sit 
down,  unless  permitted,  on  motion  of  another  member,  to  ex- 
plain, and  the  House  shall,  if  appealed  to,  decide  on  the  case 
without  debate  ;  if  the  decision  is  in  favor  of  the  member 
called  to  order,  he  shall  be  at  liberty  to  proceed,  but  not  other- 


402  APPENDIX   VI. 

wise;  and,  if  the  case  require  it,  he  shall  be  liable  to  censure 
or  such  punishment  as  the  House  may  deem  proper. 

5.  If  a  member  is  called  to  order  for  words  spoken  in  de- 
bate, the  member  calling  him  to  order  shall  indicate  the 
words  excepted  to,  and  they  shall  be  taken  down  in  writing 
at  the  Clerk's  desk  and  read  aloud  to  the  House  ;  but  he  shall 
not  be  held  to  answer,  nor  be  subject  to  the  censure  of  the 
House  therefor,  if  further  debate  or  other  business  has  inter- 
vened. 

6.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  once  to  the  same 
question  without  leave  of  the  House,  unless  he  be  the  mover, 
proposer,  or  introducer  of  the  matter  pending,  in  which  case 
he  shall  be  permitted  to  speak  in  reply,  but  not  until  every 
member  choosing  to  speak  shall  have  spoken. 

7.  While  the  Speaker  is  putting  a  question  or  addressing 
the  House  no  member  shall  walk  out  of  or  across  the  Hall, 
nor,  when  a  member  is  speaking,  pass  between  him  and  the 
Chair  ;  and  during  the  session  of  the  House  no  member  shall 
wear  his  hat,  or  remain  by  the  Clerk's  desk  during  the  call  of 
the  roll  or  the  counting  of  ballots,  or  smoke  upon  the  floor 
of  the  House  ;  and  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  and  Doorkeeper  are 
charged  with  the  strict  enforcement  of  this  clause.  Neither 
shall  any  person  be  allowed  to  smoke  upon  the  floor  of  the 
House  at  any  time. 

Rule  XV. 

ON  CALLS  OF  THE  ROLL  AND  HOUSE. 

1.  Upon  every  roll-call  the  names  of  the  members  shall  be 
called  alphabetically  by  surname,  except  when  two  or  more 
have  the  same  surname,  in  which  case  the  name  of  the  State 
shall  be  added  ;  and  if  there  be  two  such  members  from  the 
same  State,  the  whole  name  shall  be  called ;  and  after  the  roll 
has  been  once  called,  the  clerk  shall  call  in  their  alphabetical 
order  the  names  of  those  not  voting  ;  and  thereafter  the 
Speaker  shall  not  entertain  a  request  to  record  a  vote  or  an- 
nounce a  pair  unless  the  member's  name  has  been  noted  under 
clause  3  of  this  rule. 


APPENDIX   VI.  403 

2.  In  the  absence  of  a  quorum,  fifteen  members,  including 
the  Speaker,  if  there  is  one,  shall  be  authorized  to  compel  the 
attendance  of  absent  members,  and  in  all  calls  of  the  House 
the  doors  shall  be  closed,  the  names  of  the  members  shall  be 
called  by  the  Clerk,  and  the  absentees  noted  ;  and  those  for 
whom  no  sufficient  excuse  is  made  may,  by  order  of  a  majority 
of  those  present,  be  sent  for  and  arrested,  wherever  they  may 
be  found,  by  officers  to  be  appointed  by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms 
for  that  purpose,  and  their  attendance  secured  and  retained  ; 
and  the  House  shall  determine  upon  what  condition  they 
shall  be  discharged.  Members  who  voluntarily  appear  shall, 
unless  the  House  otherwise  direct,  be  immediately  admitted 
to  the  Hall  of  the  House,  and  they  shall  report  their  names 
to  the  Clerk  to  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  as  present. 

3.  On  the  demand  of  any  member,  or  at  the  suggestion  of 
the  Speaker,  the  names  of  members  sufficient  to  make  a  quo- 
rum in  the  Hall  of  the  House  who  do  not  vote,  shall  be  noted 
by  the  Clerk  and  recorded  in  the  Journal,  and  reported  to  the 
Speaker  with  the  names  of  the  members  voting  and  be  counted 
and  announced  in  determining  the  presence  of  a  quorum  to  do 
business. 

4.  Whenever  a  quorum  fails  to  vote  on  any  question,  and  a 
quorum  is  not  present  and  objection  is  made  for  that  cause, 
unless  the  House  shall  adjourn,  there  shall  be  a  call  of  the 
House,  and  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  shall  forthwith  proceed  to 
bring  in  absent  members,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  on  the  pend- 
ing question  shall  at  the  same  time  be  considered  as  ordered. 
The  Clerk  shall  call  the  roll,  and  each  member  as  he  answers 
to  his  name  may  vote  on  the  pending  question,  and,  after  the 
roll-call  is  completed,  each  member  arrested  shall  be  brought 
by  the  Sergeant-at-Arms  before  the  House,  whereupon  he 
shall  be  noted  as  present,  discharged  from  arrest,  and  given 
an  opportunity  to  vote  and  his  vote  shall  be  recorded.  If 
those  voting  on  the  question  and  those  who  are  present  and 
decline  to  vote  shall  together  make  a  majority  of  the  House, 
the  Speaker  shall  declare  that  a  quorum  is  constituted,  and 
the  pending  question  shall  be  decided  as  the  majority  of  those 


404  APPENDIX  VI 

voting  shall  appear.  And  thereupon  further  proceedings 
under  the  call  shall  be  considered  as  dispensed  with.  At  any 
time  after  the  roll-call  has  been  completed,  the  Speaker  may 
entertain  a  motion  to  adjourn,  if  seconded  by  a  majority  of 
those  present,  to  be  ascertained  by  actual  count  by  the  Speaker  ; 
and  if  the  House  adjourns,  all  proceedings  under  this  section 
shall  be  vacated.  But  this  section  of  the  rule  shall  not  apply 
to  the  sessions  of  Friday  night,  until  further  order  of  the 
House. 

Rule  XVI. 

ON  MOTIONS,   THEIR  PRECEDENCE,    ETC. 

1.  Every  motion  made  to  the  House  and  entertained  by  the 
Speaker  shall  be  reduced  to  writing  on  the  demand  of  any 
member,  and  shall  be  entered  on  the  Journal  with  the  name 
of  the  member  making  it,  unless  it  is  withdrawn  the  same 
day. 

2.  When  a  motion  has  been  made,  the  Speaker  shall  state 
it  or  (if  it  be  in  writing)  cause  it  to  be  read  aloud  by  the  Clerk 
before  being  debated,  and  it  shall  then  be  in  possession  of  the 
House,  but  may  be  withdrawn  at  any  time  before  a  decision  or 
amendment. 

3.  When  any  motion  or  proposition  is  made,  the  question, 
Will  the  House  now  consider  it?  shall  not  be  put  unless 
demanded  by  a  member. 

4.  When  a  question  is  under  debate,  no  motion  shall  be 
received  but  to  adjourn,  to  lay  on  the  table,  for  the  previous 
question  (which  motions  shall  be  decided  without  debate),  to 
postpone  to  a  day  certain,  to  refer,  or  to  amend,  or  postpone 
indefinitely  ;  which  several  motions  shall  have  precedence  in 
the  foregoing  order  ;  and  no  motion  to  postpone  to  a  day  cer- 
tain, to  refer,  or  to  postpone  indefinitely,  being  decided,  shall 
be  again  allowed  on  the  same  day  at  the  same  stage  of  the 
question. 

5.  The  hour  at  which  the  House  adjourns  shall  be  entered 
on  the  Journal. 

6.  On  the  demand  of  any  member,  before  the  question  is 


APPENDIX   VI.  405 

put,  a  question  shall  be  divided  if  it  include  propositions  so 
distinct  in  substance  that  one  being  taken  away  a  substantive 
proposition  shall  remain. 

7.  A  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert  is  indivisible,  but  a  mo- 
tion to  strike  out  being  lost  shall  neither  preclude  amendment 
nor  motion  to  strike  out  and  insert  ;  and  no  motion  or  propo- 
sition on  a  subject  different  from  that  under  consideration 
shall  be  admitted  under  color  of  amendment. 

8.  Pending  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules,  the  Speaker  may 
entertain  one  motion  that  the  House  adjourn  ;  but  after  the 
result  thereon  is  announced  he  shall  not  entertain  any  other 
dilatory  motion  till  the  vote  is  taken  on  suspension. 

9.  At  any  time  after  the  reading  of  the  Journal  it  shall  be 
in  order,  by  direction  of  the  appropriate  committees,  to  move 
that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  for  the  purpose  of  consider- 
ing bills  raising  revenue,  or  general  appropriation  bills. 

10.  No  dilatory  motion  shall  be  entertained  by  the  Speaker. 

Rule   XVII. 

PREVIOUS    QUESTION. 

1.  There  shall  be  a  motion  for  the  previous  question,  which, 
being  ordered  by  a  majority  of  members  voting,  if  a  quorum 
be  present,  shall  have  the  effect  to  cut  off  all  debate  and  bring 
the  House  to  a  direct  vote  upon  the  immediate  question  or 
questions  on  which  it  has  been  asked  and  ordered.  The  pre- 
vious question  may  be  asked  and  ordered  upon  a  single  motion, 
a  series  of  motions  allowable  under  the  rules,  or  an  amend- 
ment or  amendments,  or  may  be  made  to  embrace  all  author- 
ized motions  or  amendments  and  include  the  bill  to  its  passage 
or  rejection.  It  shall  be  in  order,  pending  the  motion  for,  or 
after  the  previous  question  shall  have  been  ordered  on  its 
passage,  for  the  Speaker  to  entertain  and  submit  a  motion  to 
commit,  with  or  without  instructions,  to  a  standing  or  select 
committee. 

2.  A  call  of  the  House  shall  not  be  in  order  after  the 
previous  question  is  ordered,  unless  it  shall  appear  upon 


406  APPENDIX  VI. 

an  actual  count  by  the  Speaker  that  a  quorum  is  not  pres- 
ent. 

3.  All  incidental  questions  of  order  arising  after  a  motion 
is  made  for  the  previous  question,  and  pending  such  motion, 
shall  be  decided,  whether  on  appeal  or  otherwise,  without 
debate. 

Rule  XVIII. 

RECONSIDERATION. 

When  a  motion  has  been  made  and  carried  or  lost,  it  shall 
be  in  order  for  any  member  of  the  majority,  on  the  same 
or  succeeding  day,  to  move  for  the  reconsideration  thereof, 
and  such  motion  shall  take  precedence  of  all  other  questions 
except  the  consideration  of  a  conference  report  or  a  motion  to 
adjourn,  and  shall  not  be  withdrawn  after  the  said  succeeding 
day  without  the  consent  of  the  House,  and  thereafter  any  mem- 
ber may  call  it  up  for  reconsideration:  Provided,  That  such 
motion,  if  made  during  the  last  six  days  of  a  session,  shall  be 
disposed  of  when  made. 

2.  No  bill,  petition,  memorial,  or  resolution  referred  to  a 
committee,  or  reported  therefrom  for  printing  and  recommit- 
ment, shall  be  brought  back  into  the  House  on  a  motion  to 
reconsider;  and  all  bills,  petitions,  memorials,  or  resolutions 
reported  from  a  committee  shall  be  accompanied  by  reports  in 
writing,  which  shall  be  printed. 

Rule  XIX. 

OF   AMENDMENTS. 

When  a  motion  or  proposition  is  under  consideration,  a 
motion  to  amend  and  a  motion  to  amend  that  amendment  shall 
be  in  order,  and  it  shall  also  be  in  order  to  offer  a  further 
amendment  by  way  of  substitute,  to  which  one  amendment 
may  be  offered,  but  which  shall  not  be  voted  on  until  the 
original  matter  is  perfected,  but  either  may  be  withdrawn 
before  amendment  or  decision  is  had  thereon.  Amendments 
to  the  title  of  a  bill  or  resolution  shall  not  be  in  order  until 
after  its  passage,  and  shall  be  decided  without  debate. 


APPENDIX  VI.  407 

Rule  XX. 

OF   AMENDMENTS    OF   THE   SENATE. 

Any  amendment  of  the  Senate  to  any  House  bill  shall  be 
subject  to  the  point  of  order  that  it  shall  first  be  considered 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union  if,  originating  in  the  House,  it  would  be  subject  to  that 
point. 

Rule  XXI. 

ON    BILLS. 

1.  Bills  and  joint  resolutions  on  their  passage  shall  be  read 
the  first  time  by  title  and  the  second  time  in  full,  when,  if  the 
previous  question  is  ordered,  the  Speaker  shall  state  the  ques- 
tion to  be :  Shall  the  bill  be  engrossed  and  read  a  third  time  ? 
and,  if  decided  in  the  affirmative,  it  shall  be  read  the  third 
time  by  title,  unless  the  reading  in  full  is  demanded  by  a  mem- 
ber, and  the  question  shall  then  be  put  upon  its  passage. 

2.  No  appropriation  shall  be  reported  in  any  general  appro- 
priation bill,  or  be  in  order  as  an  amendment  thereto,  for  any 
expenditure  not  previously  authorized  by  law,  unless  in  con- 
tinuation of  appropriations  for  such  public  works  and  objects 
as  are  already  in  progress  ;  nor  shall  any  provision  changing 
existing  law  be  in  order  in  any  general  appropriation  bill  or  in 
any  amendment  thereto. 

3.  No  bill  for  the  payment  or  adjudication  of  any  private 
claim  against  the  Government  shall  be  referred,  except  by 
unanimous  consent,  to  any  other  than  the  following-named 
committees,  viz. :  To  the  Committee  on  Invalid  Pensions,  to 
the  Committee  on  Pensions,  to  the  Committee  on  Claims,  to 
the  Committee  on  War  Claims,  to  the  Committee  on  Private 
Land  Claims,  and  to  the  Committee  on  Accounts. 

Rule  XXII. 

OF    PETITIONS,    MEMORIALS,    BILLS,    AND   RESOLUTIONS. 

1.  Members  having  petitions  or  memorials  or  bills  of  a  pri- 
vate nature  to  present  may  deliver  them  to  the  Clerk,  indors- 
ing their  names  and  the  reference  or  disposition  to  be  made 


408'  APPENDIX  VI. 

thereof  ;  and  said  petitions  and  memorials  and  bills  of  a  pri- 
vate nature,  except  such  as,  in  the  judgment  of  the  Speaker, 
are  of  an  obscene  or  insulting  character,  shall  be  entered  on 
the  Journal  with  the  names  of  the  members  presenting  them, 
and  the  Clerk  shall  furnish  a  transcript  of  such  entry  to  the 
official  reporters  of  debates  for  publication  in  the  Record. 

2.  Any  petition  or  memorial  or  private  bill  excluded  under 
this  rule  shall  be  returned  to  the  "member  from  whom  it  was 
received  ;  and  petitions  and  private  bills  which  have  been  in- 
appropriately referred  may,  by  the  direction  of  the  committee 
having  possession  of  the  same,  be  properly  referred  in  the 
manner  originally  presented  ;  and  an  erroneous  reference  of  a 
petition  or  private  bill  under  this  clause  shall  not  confer  juris- 
diction upon  the  committee  to  consider  or  report  the  same. 

3.  All  other  bills,  memorials,  and  resolutions  may,  in  like 
manner,  be  delivered,  indorsed  with  the  names  of  members 
introducing  them,  to  the  Speaker,  to  be  by  him  referred,  and 
the  titles  and  references  thereof  and  of  all  bills,  resolutions, 
and  documents  referred  under  the  rules,  shall  be  entered  on 
the  Journal  and  printed  in  the  Record  of  the  next  day,  and 
correction  in  case  of  error  or  reference  may  be  made  by  the 
House  without  debate  in  accordance  with  Rule  XI.  on  any  day 
immediately  after  the  reading  of  the  Journal,  by  unanimous 
consent,  or  on  motion  of  a  committee  claiming  jurisdiction,  or 
on  the  report  of  the  committee  to  which  the  bill  has  been 
erroneously  referred. 

4.  When  a  bill,  resolution,  or  memorial  is  introduced  "by 
request,"  these  words  shall  be  entered  upon  the  Journal  and 
printed  in  the  Record. 

5.  All  resolutions  of  inquiry  addressed  to  the  heads  of  Ex- 
ecutive Departments  shall  be  reported  to  the  House  within  one 
week  after  presentation. 

Rule  XXIII. 

OF   COMMITTEES   OF   THE    "WHOLE    HOUSE. 

1.  In  all  cases,  in  forming  a  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House}  the  Speaker  shall  leave  his  chair  after  appointing  a 


APPENDIX 'VI.  .  409 

chairman  to  preside,  who  shall,  in  case  of  ^disturbance  or  dis- 
orderly conduct  in  the  galleries  or  lobby,  have  power  to  cause 
the  same  to  be  cleared.     * 

2.  Whenever  a  Committee  of  the  While's buse  or  of  the- 
Whole  Hotfse  on  the  state  of  the  Union. finds  itself  without 
a  quorum,  which  shall  consist  of  one  hundred  members,  the 
chairman  shall  cause  the  roll  to  be  called,  and  thereupon  the 
committee  shall  rise,  and  the  chairman  shall  report  the  names 
of  the  absentees  to  the  House,  which  shall  be  entered  on  the 
Journal ;  but  if  on  such  call  a  quorum  shall  appear,  the  com- 
mittee shall  thereupon  resume  its  sitting  without  further  order 
of  the  House. 

3.  All  motions  or  propositions  involving  a  tax  or  charge 
upon  the  people  ;  all  proceedings  touching  appropriations  of 
money  or  bills  making  appropriations  of  money  or  property, 
or  requiring  such  appropriation  to  be  made,  or  authorizing 
payments  out  of  appropriations  already  made,  or  releasing  any 
liability  to  the  United  States  for  money  or  property,  or  refer- 
ring any  claim  to  the  Court  of  Claims,  shall  be  first  considered 
in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  a  point  of  order  under  this 
rule  shall  be  good  at  any  time  before  the  consideration  of  a 
bill  has  commenced. 

4.  In  Committees  of  the  Whole  nouse  business  on  their 
calendars  may  be  taken  up  in  regular  order,  or  in  such  order 
as  the  committee  may  determine,  unless  the  bill  to  be  consid- 
ered was  determined  by  the  House  at  the  time  of  going  into 
committee;  but  bills  for  raising  revenue,  general  appropria- 
tion bills,  and  bills  for  the  improvement  of  rivers  and  harbors 
shall  have  precedence. 

5.  When  general  debate  is  closed  by  order  of  the  House, 
any  member  shall  be  allowed  five  minutes  to  explain  any 
amendment  he  may  offer,  after  which  the  member  who  shall 
first  obtain  the  floor  shall  be  allowed  to  speak  five  minutes  in 
opposition  to  it,  and  there  shall  be  no  further  debate  thereon ; 
but  the  same  privilege  of  debate  shall  be  allowed  in  favor  of 
and  against  any  amendment  that  may  be  offered  to  an  amend- 
ment: and  neither  an  amendment  nor  an  amendment  to  an 


410  APPENDIX  VI. 

amendment  shall  be  withdrawn  by  the  mover  thereof  unless 
by  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  committee. 

6.  The  committee  may,  by  the  vote  of  a  majority  of  the 
members  present,  at  any  time  after  the  five  minutes'  debate 
has  begun  upon  proposed  amendments  to  any  section  or  para- 
graph of  a  bill,  close  all  debate  upon  such  section  or  para- 
graph, or,  at  its  election,  upon  the  pending  amendments  only 
(which  motion  shall  be  decided  without  debate) ;  but  this  shall 
not  preclude  further  amendment,  to  be  decided  without  debate. 

7.  A  motion  to  strike  out  the  enacting  words  of  a  bill  shall 
have  precedence  of  a  motion  to  amend,  and,  if  carried,  shall 
be  considered  equivalent  to  its  rejection.  Whenever  a  bill  is 
reported  from  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  an  adverse 
recommendation  and  such  recommendation  is  disagreed  to  by 
the  House,  the  bill  shall  stand  recommitted  to  the  said  com- 
mittee without  further  action  by  the  House;  but  before  the 
question  of  concurrence  is  submitted  it  is  in  order  to  enter- 
tain a  motion  to  refer  the  bill  to  any  committee,  with  or  with- 
out instructions,  and  when  the  same  is  again  reported  to  the 
House  it  shall  be  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
without  debate. 

8.  The  rules  of  proceeding  in  the  House  shall  be  observed 

in  Committees  of  the  Whole  House  so  far  as  they  may  be 

applicable. 

Rule  XXIY. 

ORDER  OF   BUSINESS. 

1.   The  daily  order  of  business  shall  be  as  follows: 

First.   Prayer  by  the  Chaplain. 

Second.   Reading  and  approval  of  the  Journal. 

Third.    Correction  of  reference  of  public  bills. 

Fourth.   Disposal  of  business  on  the  Speaker's  table. 

Fifth.    Unfinished  business. 

Sixth.  The  morning  hour  for  the  consideration  of  bills 
called  up  by  committees. 

Seventh.  Motions  to  go  into  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  on  the  state  of  the  Union. 

Eighth.   Orders  of  the  day. 


APPENDIX  VI.  411 

2.  Business  on  the  Speaker's  table  shall  be  disposed  of  as 
follows : 

Messages  from  the  President  shall  be  referred  to  the  appro- 
priate committees  without  debate.  Reports  and  communi- 
"cations  from  the  heads  of  Departments,  and  other  commu- 
nications addressed  to  the  House,  and  bills,  resolutions,  and 
messages  from  the  Senate  may  be  referred  to  the  appropriate 
committees  in  the  same  manner  and  with  the  same  right  of 
correction  as  public  bills  presented  by  members;  but  House 
bills  with  Senate  amendments  which  do  not  require  consider- 
ation in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  may  be  at  once  disposed 
of  as  the  House  may  determine,  as  may  also  Senate  bills  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  House  bills  already  favorably  reported 
by  a  committee  of  the  House,  and  not  required  to  be  consid- 
ered in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  disposed  of  in  the  same 
manner  on  motion  directed  to  be  made  by  such  committee. 

3.  The  consideration  of  the  unfinished  business  in  which  the 
House  may  be  engaged  at  an  adjournment,  except  business  in 
the  morning  hour,  shall  be  resumed  as  soon  as  the  business  on 
the  Speaker's  table  is  finished,  and  at  the  same  time  each  day 
thereafter  until  disposed  of,  and  the  consideration  of  all  other 
unfinished  business  shall  be  resumed  whenever  the  class  of 
business  to  which  it  belongs  shall  be  in  order  under  the  rules. 

4.  After  the  unfinished  business  has  been  disposed  of,  the 
Speaker  shall  call  each  standing  committee  in  regular  order, 
and  then  select  committees,  and  each  committee  when  named 
may  call  up  for  consideration  any  bill  reported  by  it  on  a  pre- 
vious day  and  on  the  House  Calendar,  and  if  the  Speaker  shall 
not  complete  the  call  of  the  committees  before  the  House  passes 
to  other  business,  he  shall  resume  the  next  call  where  he  left 
off,  giving  preference  to  the  last  bill  under  consideration :  Pro- 
vided, That  whenever  any  committee  shall  have  occupied  the 
morning  hour  on  two  days,  it  shall  not  be  in  order  to  call  up 
any  other  bill  until  the  other  committees  have  been  called  in 
their  turn. 

5.  After  one  hour  shall  have  been  devoted  to  the  considera- 
tion of  bills  called  up  by  committees,  it  shall  be  in  order,  pend- 


412  APPENDIX  VI. 

ing  consideration  or  discussion  thereof,  to  entertain  a  motion 
to  go  into  Committee  of,  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the 
Union,  or,  when  authorized  by  a  committee,  to  go  into  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  House  on  the  state  of  the  Union  to 
consider  a  particular  bill,  to  which  motion  one  amendment 
only,  designating  another  bill,  may  be  made;  and  if  either 
motion  be  determined  in  the  negative,  it  shall  not  be  in  order 
to  make  either  motion  again  until  the  disposal  of  the  matter 
under  consideration  or  discussion. 

6.  On  Friday  of  each  week,  after  the  unfinished  business 
has  been  disposed  of,  it  shall  be  in  order  to  entertain  a  motion 
that  the  House  resolve  itself  into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
House  to  consider  business  on  the  Private  Calendar;  and  if 
this  motion  fails,  then  public  business  shall  be  in  order  as  on 
other  days. 

Kule  XXV. 

PRIORITY   OF    BUSINESS. 

All  questions  relating  to  the  priority  of  business  shall  be 
decided  by  a  majority  without  debate. 

Kule   XXVI. 

PRIVATE   AND   DISTRICT   OF   COLUMBIA  BUSINESS. 

1.  Friday  in  every  week  shall  be  set  apart  for  the  consider- 
ation of  private  business,  unless  otherwise  determined  by  the 
House. 

2.  The  House  shall  on  each  Friday  at  5  o'clock,  p.m.,  take 
a  recess  until  8  o'clock,  at  which  evening  session  private 
pension  bills,  bills  for  the  removal  of  political  disabilities,  and 
bills  removing  charges  of  desertion  only  shall  be  considered  ; 
said  evening  session  not  to  extend  beyond  10  o'clock  and  30 
minutes. 

3.  The  second  and  fourth  Mondays  in  each  month,  after 
the  disposal  of  such  business  on  the  Speaker's  table  as  requires 
reference  only,  shall,  when  claimed  by  the  Committee  on  the 
District  of  Columbia,  be  set  apart  for  the  consideration  of 
such  business  as  may  be  presented  by  said  committee. 


APPENDIX  VI.  413 

Kule  XXYII. 

UNFINISHED   BUSINESS   OF   THE    SESSION. 

All  business  before  committees  of  the  House  at  the  end  of 
one  session  shall  be  resumed  at  the  commencement  of  the  next 
session  of  the  same  Congress  in  the  same  manner  as  if  no 
adjournment  had  taken  place. 

Rule   XXYIII. 

CHANGE   OR   SUSPENSION   OF  RULES. 

1.  No  rule  shall  be  suspended  except  by  a  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  members  voting,  a  quorum  being  present;  nor 
shall  the  Speaker  entertain  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  ex- 
cept on  the  first  and  third  Mondays  of  each  month,  preference 
being  given  on  the  first  Monday  to  individuals  and  on  the 
third  Monday  to  committees,  and  during  the  last  six  days  of 
a  session. 

2.  All  motions  to  suspend  the  rules  shall,  before  being  sub- 
mitted to  the  House,  be  seconded  by  a  majority  by  tellers,  if 
demanded. 

3.  When  a  motion  to  suspend  the  rules  has  been  seconded, 
it  shall  be  in  order,  before  the  final  vote  is  taken  thereon,  to 
debate  the  proposition  to  be  voted  upon  for  forty  minutes, 
one-half  of  such  time  to  be  given  to  debate  in  favor  of,  and 
one-half  to  debate  in  opposition  to,  such  proposition,  and  the 
same  right  of  debate  shall  be  allowed  whenever  the  previous 
question  has  been  ordered  on  any  proposition  on  which  there 
has  been  no  debate. 

Rule  XXIX. 

CONFERENCE   REPORTS. 

The  presentation  of  reports  of  committees  of  conference 
shall  always  be  in  order,  except  when  the  Journal  is  being  read, 
while  the  roll  is  being  called,  or  the  House  is  dividing  on  any 
proposition.  And  there  shall  accompany  every  such  report  a 
detailed  statement  sufficiently  explicit  to  inform  the  House 
what  effect  such  amendments  or  propositions  will  have  upon 
the  measures  to  which  they  relate. 


414  APPENDIX  VI. 

Rule  XXX. 

SECRET   SESSION. 

Whenever  confidential  communications  are  received  from 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  whenever  the  Speaker 
or  any  member  shall  inform  the  House  that  he  has  communi- 
cations which  he  believes  ought  to  be  kept  secret  for  the 
present,  the  House  shall  be  cleared  of  all  persons  except  the 
members  and  officers  thereof,  and  so  continue  during  the  read- 
ing of  such  communications,  the  debates  and  proceedings 
thereon,  unless  otherwise  ordered  by  the  House. 

Rule  XXXI. 

READING  OF   PAPERS. 

When  the  reading  of  a  paper  other  than  one  upon  which 
the  House  is  called  to  give  a  final  vote  is  demanded,  and  the 
same  is  objected  to  by  any  member,  it  shall  be  determined 
without  debate  by  a  vote  of  the  House. 

JlULE    XXXII. 
DRAWING    OF    SEATS. 

1.  At  the  commencement  of  each  Congress,  immediately 
after  the  Members  and  Delegates  are  sworn  in,  the  Clerk  shall 
place  in  a  box,  prepared  for  that  purpose,  a  number  of  small 
balls,  of  marble  or  other  material,  equal  to  the  number  of  Mem- 
bers and  Delegates,  which  balls  shall  be  consecutively  num- 
bered and  thoroughly  intermingled,  and  at  such  hour  as  shall 
be  fixed  by  the  House  for  that  purpose,  by  the  hands  of  a  page, 
draw  said  balls  one  by  one  from  the  box  and  announce  the 
number  as  it  is  drawn,  upon  which  announcement  the  Member 
or  Delegate  whose  name  on  a  numbered  alphabetical  list  shall 
correspond  with  the  number  on  the  ball  shall  advance  and 
choose  his  seat  for  the  term  for  which  he  is  elected. 

2.  Before  said  drawing  shall  commence  each  seat  shall  be 
vacated  and  so  remain  until  selected  under  this  rule,  and  any 
seat  having  been  selected  shall  be  deemed  forfeited  if  left  un- 
occupied before  the  call  of  the  roll  is  finished,  and  whenever 


APPENDIX  VL  415 

the  seats  of  Members  and  Delegates  shall  have  been  drawn, 
no  proposition  for  a  second  drawing  shall  be  in  order  during 
that  Congress. 

Rule  XXXIII. 

HALL   OF   THE    HOUSE. 

The  Hall  of  the  House  shall  be  used  only  for  the  legislative 
business  of  the  House  and  for  the  caucus  meetings  of  its  mem- 
bers, except  upon  occasions  where  the  House  by  resolution 
agree  to  take  part  in  any  ceremonies  to  be  observed  therein ; 
and  the  Speaker  shall  not  entertain  a  motion  for  the  suspen- 
sion of  this  rule. 

Rule  XXXIV. 

OF   ADMISSION   TO    THE    FLOOR. 

The  persons  hereinafter  named,  and  none  other,  shall  be 
admitted  to  the  Hall  of  the  House  or  rooms  leading  thereto, 
viz.  :  The  President  and  Vice-President  of  the  United  States 
and  their  private  secretaries,  Judges  of  the  Supreme  Court, 
Members  of  Congress  and  Members  elect,  contestants  in  elec- 
tion cases  during  the  pendency  of  their  cases  in  the  House,  the 
Secretary  and  Sergeant-at-Arms  of  the  Senate,  heads  of  De- 
partments, foreign  ministers,  governors  of  States,  the  Architect 
of  the  Capitol,  the  Librarian  of  Congress  and  his  assistant  in 
charge  of  the  Law  Library,  such  persons  as  have,  by  name,  re- 
ceived the  thanks  of  Congress,  ex-members  of  the  House  of 
Representatives  who  are  not  interested  in  any  claim  or  directly 
in  any  bill  pending  before  Congress,  and  clerks  of  committees 
when  business  from  their  committee  is  under  consideration; 
and  it  shall  not  be  in  order  for  the  Speaker  to  entertain  a 
request  for  the  suspension  of  this  rule  or  to  present  from  the 
chair  the  request  of  any  member  for  unanimous  consent. 

Rule  XXXV. 

OF    ADMISSION   TO    THE   GALLERIES. 

The  Speaker  shall  set  aside  a  portion  of  the  west  gallery  for 
the  use  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  the  members  of 
his  Cabinet,  Justices  of  the  Supreme  Court,  foreign  ministers 


416  APPENDIX  VI. 

and  suites,  and  the  members  of  their  respective  families,  and 
shall  also  set  aside  another  portion  of  the  same  gallery  for  the 
accommodation  of  persons  to  be  admitted  on  the  card  of  mem- 
bers. The  southerly  half  of  the  east  gallery  shall  be  assigned 
exclusively  for  the  use  of  the  families  of  members  of  Congress, 
in  which  the  Speaker  shall  control  one  bench,  and  on  request 
of  a  member  the  Speaker  shall  issue  a  card  of  admission  to  his 
family,  which  shall  include  their  visitors,  and  no  other  person 
shall  be  admitted  to  this  section. 

Rule  XXXVI. 

OFFICIAL   AND   OTHER   REPORTERS. 

1.  The  appointment  and  removal,  for  cause,  of  the  official 
reporters  of  the  House,  including  stenographers  of  committees 
and  the  manner  of  the  execution  of  their  duties,  shall  be  vested 
in  the  Speaker.    4 

2.  Stenographers  and  reporters,  other  than  the  official  re- 
porters of  the  House,  wishing  to  take  down  the  debates  and 
proceedings,  may  be  admitted  by  the  Speaker  to  the  reporters' 
gallery  over  the  Speaker's  chair,  under  such  regulations  as  he 
may,  from  time  to  time,  prescribe ;  and  he  may  assign  one  seat 
on  the  floor  to  Associated  Press  reporters,  and  one  to  The 
United  Press  reporters,  and  regulate  the  occupation  of  the 
same.  And  the  Speaker  may  admit  to  the  floor,  under  such 
regulations  as  he  may  prescribe,  one  additional  representative 
of  each  press  association. 

Rule  XXXVII. 

PAY   OF   WITNESSES. 

The  rule  for  paying  witnesses  subpoenaed  to  appear  before 
the  House  or  either  of  its  committees,  shall  be  as  follows :  For 
each  day  a  witness  shall  attend,  the  sum  of  two  dollars;  for 
each  mile  he  shall  travel  in  coming  to  or  going  from  the  place 
of  examination,  the  sum  of  five  cents  each  way;  but  nothing 
shall  be  paid  for  traveling  when  the  witness  has  been  sum- 
moned at  the  place  of  trial. 


APPENDIX  VI.  417 

Rule   XXXVIII. 

PAPERS. 

1.  The  clerks  of  the  several  committees  of  the  House  shall, 
within  three  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  a  Congress, 
deliver  to  the  Clerk  of  the  House  all  bills,  joint  resolutions, 
petitions,  and  other  papers  referred  to  the  committee,  together 
with  all  evidence  taken  by  such  committee  under  the  order  of 
the  House  during  the  said  Congress  and  not  reported  to  the 
House ;  and  in  the  event  of  the  failure  or  neglect  of  any  clerk 
of  a  committee  to  comply  with  this  rule  the  Clerk  of  the  House 
shall,  within  three  days  thereafter,  take  into  his  keeping  all 
such  papers  and  testimony. 

Rule  XXXIX. 

WITHDRAWAL   OF   PAPERS. 

No  memorial  or  other  paper  presented  to  the  House  shall  be 
withdrawn  from  its  files  without  its  leave,  and  if  withdrawn 
therefrom  certified  copies  thereof  shall  be  left  in  the  office  of 
the  Clerk;  but  when  an  Act  may  pass  for  the  settlement  of  a 
claim,  the  Clerk  is  authorized  to  transmit  to  the  officer  in 
charge  with  the  settlement  thereof  the  papers  on  file  in  his 
office  relating  to  such  claim,  or  may  loan  temporarily  to  any 
officer  or  bureau  of  the  Executive  Departments  any  papers  on 
file  in  his  office  relating  to  any  matter  pending  before  such 
officer  or  bureau,  taking  proper  receipt  therefor. 

Rule  XL. 


In  all  other  cases  of  ballot  than  for  committees  a  majority 
of  the  votes  given  shall  be  necessary  to  an  election,  and  where 
there  shall  not  be  such  a  majority  on  the  first  ballot  the  bal- 
lots shall  be  repeated  until  a  majority  be  obtained ;  and  in  all 
balloting  blanks  shall  be  rejected  and  not  taken  into  the 
count  in  enumeration  of  votes  or  reported  by  the  tellers. 


418  APPENDIX  VI. 

Rule  XLI. 

MESSAGES. 

Messages  received  from  the  Senate  and  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  giving  notice  of  bills  passed  or  approved,  shall 
be  entered  in  the  Journal  and  published  in  the  Record  of  that 
day's  proceedings. 

Rule  XLII. 

EXECUTIVE   COMMUNICATIONS. 

Estimates  of  appropriations,  and  all  other  communications 
from  the  Executive  Departments,  intended  for  the  considera- 
tion of  any  committees  of  the  House,  shall  be  addressed  to 
the  Speaker  and  by  him  referred  as  provided  by  clause  3  of 
Rule  XXIY. 

Rule  XLIII. 

QUALIFICATIONS    OF    OFFICERS    AND    EMPLOYEES. 

No  person  shall  be  an  officer  of  the  House,  or  continue  in 
its  employment,  who  shall  be  an  agent  for  the  prosecution  of 
any  claim  against  the  Government,  or  be  interested  in  such 
claim  otherwise  than  as  an  original  claimant;  and  it  shall  be 
the  duty  of  the  Committee  on  Accounts  to  inquire  into  and 
report  to  the  House  any  violation  of  this  rule. 

Rule  XLIV. 
Jefferson's  manual. 
The  rules  of  parliamentary  practice  comprised  in  Jeffer- 
son's Manual  shall  govern  the  House  in  all  cases  to  which 
they  are  applicable,  and  in  which  they  are  not  inconsistent 
with  the  standing  rules  and  orders  of  the  House  and  joint 
rules  of  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives. 

Rule  XLV. 

PRINTING. 

1.  All  documents  referred  to  committees  or  otherwise  dis- 
posed of  shall  be  printed  unless  otherwise  specially  ordered. 

2.  Motions  to  print  additional  numbers  of  any  bill,  report, 


APPENDIX  VI.  419 

resolution,  or  other  public  document  shall  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Printing  ;  and  the  report  of  the  committee 
thereon  shall  be  accompanied  by  an  estimate  of  the  probable 
cost  thereof.  Unless  ordered  by  the  House,  no  bill,  resolu- 
tion, or  other  proposition  reported  by  a  committee  shall  be 
reprinted  unless  the  same  be  placed  upon  the  Calendar.  Of 
bills  which  have  passed  the  Senate,  and  of  House  bills  as 
amended  by  the  Senate,  when  referred  in  the  House,  there 
shall  be  printed  four  hundred  copies. 


420  APPENDIX  VII. 


APPENDIX   VII. 

LIST  OF  WORKS  CITED,  WITH  DATES  AND  PLACES  OF 
PUBLICATION. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis.  "  Three  Episodes  of  Massachusetts 
History."    2  vols.    Boston  and  New  York,  1893. 

Adams,  Charles  Francis.    (See  Adams,  John,  and  Adams,  J.  Q.) 

Adams,  Henry.    "Life of  Albert  Gallatin."    Philadelphia,  1880. 

"  Adams,  John,  Works  of."  Edited  by  Charles  Francis  Adams. 
Boston,  1856. 

"  Adams,  John  Quincy,  Memoirs  of."  Edited  by  Charles  Fran- 
cis Adams.    12  vols.    Philadelphia,  1874. 

American  Historical  Association,*  Annual  Reports  of. 
Washington,  1889-1897.     (See  Jameson,  J.  F.) 

"  Annals  of  Congress,"  1st  to  18th  Congresses.  Gales  and  Sea- 
ton.    Washington,  1834-1855. 

"  Appleton's  Cyclopedia  of  American  Biography."  Edited 
by  James  Grant  Wilson  and  John  Fiske.  6  vols.  New  York, 
1891. 

Appleton,  William  S.  "A  Roll  of  Members  of  the  United  States 
Senate  for  the  First  Century."  In  "  Proceedings  of  the  Massa- 
chusetts Historical  Society."  Second  series.  Vol.  x.  March, 
1895. 

Atlantic  Monthly.  Boston,  1857-1897.  (See  Godkin,  E.  L. ;  Mer- 
win,  H.  C.) 

Bancroft,  George.    "  History  of  the  United  States."    Revised 

edition.    New  York,  1885. 
Bentham,  Jeremy,  Works  of.    Edinburgh,  1843. 
Benton,  Thomas  Hart.    (See  Roosevelt,  Theodore.) 
Blaine,  James  G.    "  Twenty  Years  of  Congress."    2  vols.    Nor- 
wich, Conn.,  1884. 
Bouton,  Nathaniel.    (See  "  New  Hampshire  Town  Papers.") 
Bridgeman,  Raymond  L.    m  The  People  Should  Elect."    In  New 
England  Magazine,  November,  1894. 


APPENDIX  VII.  421 

Bristol,  Rhode  Island.     (See  Munro,  Wilfred  H.) 
Brock,  R.  A.     (See  Dinwiddie,  R.) 

Browne,  William  Hand.    (See  "Maryland,  The  Archives  of.") 
Bryce,  James.     "The  American  Commonwealth."    Third  edi- 
tion, revised.    New  York,  1893-1895. 

"  Congressional  Debates,"  18th  to  25th  Congresses.  Gales  and 
Seaton.     Washington,  1825-1837. 

"Congressional  Directory."  Washington,  1809,  1816,  1819- 
1898. 

"Congressional  Globe,"  23d  to  42d  Congresses.  Blair  and 
Rives.    Washington,  1834-1873. 

"Congressional  Record,"  43d  to  55th  Congresses.  Govern- 
ment Printing  Office.     Washington,  1874-1898. 

Cooke,  John  Esten.  "  History  of  Virginia."  American  Com- 
monwealth Series.    Boston,  1884. 

Cushing,  Luther  S.  "  Law  and  Practice  of  Legislative  Assem- 
blies."   Boston,  1874. 

"  Dictionary  of  National  Biography."  Edited  by  Sidney 
Lee.     London,  1892. 

"  Dinwiddie,  R.,  The  Official  Records  of."  Edited  by  R.  A. 
Brock.    2  vols.    Richmond,  Va.,  1883-1884. 

"  Federalist,  The."  Contained  in  Vol.  IX.,  Alexander  Hamil- 
ton's Works.     Edited  by  H.  C.  Lodge.     New  York,  1885-1886. 

Fiske,  John.  "  Civil  Government  in  the  United  States."  Bos- 
ton, 1891. 

Follett,  M.  "The  Speaker  of  the  House  of  Representatives." 
With  an  Introduction  by  Albert  Bushnell  Hart.  New  York, 
1896. 

Ford,  Paul  Leicester.     (See  Jefferson,  Thomas.) 

Forum,  The.  New  York,  1886-1898.  (See  West,  Henry  Litchfield ; 
Hoar,  George  F. ;  Mitchell,  John  H.) 

Frothingham,  Richard.  "  Rise  of  the  Republic  of  the  United 
States."     Boston,  1872. 

Gallatin,  Albert.     (See  Adams,  Henry.) 

Garfield,  James  A.  "Appropriations  and  Misappropriations." 
In  North  American  Review,  Vol.  cxxviii. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.  "History  of  the  Rebellion;  Its  Authors 
and  Causes."     New  York,  1864. 

Godkin,  E.  L.  "  The  Decline  of  Legislatures."  In  Atlantic 
Monthly,      Vol.  lviii.     No.  477. 


422  APPENDIX  VII. 

Goldborough,  Charles  W.  "  United  States  Naval  Chronicle." 
Washington,  1824. 

Goodnow,  Frank  J.  "  Comparative  Administrative  Law."  2 
vols.    New  York,  1893. 

Greeley,  Horace.  "Recollections  of  a  Busy  Life."  New  York, 
1868. 

Greeley,  Horace.     (See  Parton,  James.) 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell.  "  Practical  Essays  on  American 
Government."     New  York,  1893. 

"Hearings  Before  Congressional  Committees."  Washing- 
ton, 1896. 

Herbert,  Hilary  A.  "  The  House  of  Representatives  and  the 
House  of  Commons."    In  North  American  Review,  Vol.  clviii. 

Hildreth,  Richard.  "History  of  the  United  States."  6  vols. 
New  York,  1856. 

Hinsdale,  B.  A.  "The  American  Government;  National  and 
State."     Chicago  and  New  York,  1895. 

Hoar,  George  F.  "  Has  the  Senate  Degenerated  ?  "  In  Forum, 
Vol.  xxiii. 

Hoar,  George  F.  "  The  Conduct  of  Business  in  Congress."  In 
North  American  Review,  Vol.  cxxviii. 

Holman,  William  S.  "  Spending  Puhlic  Money."  In  North 
American  Review,  Vol.  cliv. 

Holst,  Hermann  E.  von.  "  Constitutional  History  of  the 
United  States."    7  vols.    Chicago,  1881-1892. 

House  of  Commons,  Journals  of  the.     London,  1803,  et  seq. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.  Constitution,  Manual,  and 
Digest  ;  Rules  and  Practice  of.    Washington. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.,  Journals  of.  Washing- 
ton, 1789-1898. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.,  Miscellaneous  Documents 
of.     Washington,  1848-1897. 

House  of  Representatives,  U.  S.,  Reports  of  Committees  of. 
Washington,  1820-1898. 

Howard,  George  E.  "  Local  Constitutional  History  of  the 
United  States."     Baltimore,  1889. 

Jackson,  Andrew.     (See  Parton,  James.) 

Jameson,  J.  F.  "  The  Origin  of  the  Standing  Committee  Sys- 
tem in  American  Legislative  Bodies."  In  "Report  of  Amer- 
ican Historical  Association."  Washington,  1893.  53  :  2, 
"Senate  Miscellaneous  Documents,"  Vol.  iv. 


APPENDIX  VII.  423 

Jefferson,  Thomas.  "Manual  of  Parliamentary  Practice  for 
the  Use  of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States."  Washington, 
1820.  (Published  annually  in  "  House  Manual  and  Digest," 
q.  v.) 

"Jefferson,  Thomas,  The  Works  of."  Edited  by  H.  A. 
Washington.    9  vols.     Philadelphia,  1869. 

"Jefferson,  Thomas,  The  Writings  of."  Edited  by  Paul 
Leicester  Ford.    8  vols,  issued.    New  York,  1892-1897. 

Jenks,  Jeremiah  W.  "Methods  of  Law  Making."  In  John- 
soil's  Cyclopedia. 

Johnston,  Alexander.     "Riders."    In  Lalor's  Cyclopedia. 

"  Johnson's  Universal  Cyclopedia."  Edited  by  Charles  Ken- 
dall Adams.    8  vols.    New  York,  1893.    (See  Jenks,  J.  W.) 

Kerr,  Miss  Clara  H.  "The  Origin  and  Development  of  the 
United  States  Senate."    Ithaca,  N.Y.,  1895. 

"Lalor's  Cyclopedia  of  Political  Science  and  United 
States  History."  3  vols.  New  York,  1893.  (See  Johnston, 
Alexander;  Stenie,  Simon.) 

Lanman,  Charles.  "  Biographical  Annals  of  the  Civil  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States."    Washington,  1876. 

Lee,  Sidney.     (See  "Dictionary  of  National  Biography.") 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.  "Historical  and  Political  Essays." 
New  York  and  Boston,  1892. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot.  "  Obstruction  in  the  Senate."  In 
North  American  Revieio,  Vol.  clvii.    1893. 

Lossing,  Benson  J.  "Cyclopedia  of  United  States  History." 
2  vols.    New  York,  1881-1882. 

"Maclay,  William,  Journal  of."  Edited  by  Edgar  S.  Ma- 
clay.    New  York,  1890. 

"Madison,  James,  Writings  of."    4  vols.    Philadelphia,  1867. 

Maine,  Sir  Henry.     "  Popular  Government."    London,  1886. 

"  Maryland,  Archives  of."  Edited  by  William  Hand  Browne. 
Baltimore,  1883,  et  seq. 

"  Massachusetts  Historical  Society."    (See  Appleton,  W.  S.) 

May,  Sir  T.  Erskine.  "  Law  and  Usage  of  Parliament."  Sev- 
enth edition.     London,  1873. 

McKee,  Thomas  H.  "  United  States  Red  Book."  Washington, 
1892. 

Merwin,  Henry  Childs.  "The  American  Notion  of  Equal- 
ity."   In  Atlantic  Monthly,  September,  1897. 


424  APPENDIX   VII. 

Mitchell,  John  H.  "  Election  of  Senators  by  Popular  Vote." 
In  Forum,  Vol.  xxi. 

Mitchell,  John  L.  "How  a  Law  is  Made."  In  North  Ameri- 
can Review,  November,  1894. 

Munro,  Wilfred  H.  "History  of  Bristol,  R.  I."  Providence. 
1880. 

Murray,  James  A.  H.  "New  English  Dictionary."  Oxford, 
1888-1893,  et  seq. 

Nation,  The.    New  York,  1865-1898. 

New  England  Magazine,  The.  Boston,  1886-1898.  (See  Bridge- 
man,  Raymond  L.) 

"New  Hampshire  Town  Papers,"  1638-1734.  Edited  by  Na- 
thaniel Bouton.     Concord,  N.H.,  1875. 

New  York  Tribune,  The.    New  York,  1841-1898. 

New  York  World,  The.    New  York,  1861-1898. 

Niles'  Register.    Baltimore,  1811-1845. 

North  American  Review.  New  York,  1815-1898.  (See  Garfield, 
J.  A. ;  Hoar,  G.  F. ;  Holman,  W.  S. ;  Lodge,  H.  C. ;  Mitchell, 
J.  L.;  Reed,  T.  B.) 

Parton,  James.     "Life  of  Andrew  Jackson."    3  vols.    Boston, 

1870. 
Parton,  James.     "Life  of  Thomas  Jefferson."    Boston,  1874. 
Parton,  James.     "  Life  of  Horace  Greeley."    Boston,  1882. 
Pennsylvania  Assembly,  Journals  of  the.     Philadelphia, 

1752-1789.    (First  volumes  published  under  title ' '  Votes  of  the 

Assembly.") 
Pennsylvania  Provincial  Council,  Minutes  of  the.    15  vols. 

Philadelphia,  1852. 
"Providence,  Early  Records  of  the  Town  of."    Providence, 

1892. 

"  Records  of  Massachusetts."    Edited  by  Nathaniel  B.  Shurt- 

leff.    5  vols.    Boston,  1854. 
Reed,  Thomas   Brackett.      "Spending  Public  Money."     In 

North  American  ^Review,  Vol.  cliv. 
"Rolls  of  Parliament,"  1278-1503.    6  vols.     [London,  17—  .] 
Roosevelt,  Theodore.     "  Life  of  Thomas  Hart  Benton."    In 

American  Statesman  Series.    Boston  and  New  York,  1887. 
Roosevelt,  Theodore.    "The  Winning  of  the  West."    4  vols. 

New  York,  1889-1896. 


APPENDIX   VII.  425 

Schouler,  James.  "History  of  the  United  States."  5  vols. 
Washington  and  New  York,  1880-1891. 

Senate,  U.  S.,  Journals  of.    Washington,  1789-1898. 

Senate,  U.S.,  Miscellaneous  Documents  of.    Washington. 

Senate,  U.  S.,  Reports  of  Committees  of.    Washington. 

Sherman,  John.  "Recollections  of  Forty  Years  in  the  House, 
Senate,  and  Cabinet ;  An  Autobiography."    New  York,  1895. 

Shurtleff,  Nathaniel  B.     (See  "  Records  of  Massachusetts.") 

Spofford,  A.  R.     "Congress,  U.  S."    In  Lalor's  Cyclopedia. 

Spofford,  A.  R.  "  Practical  Manual  of  Parliamentary  Rules." 
Chicago,  1884. 

Sterne,  Simon.     "Legislation."    In  Lalor's  Cyclopedia. 

Stubbs,  William.  "Constitutional  History  of  England."  Ox- 
ford, 1874-1878. 

Stubbs,  William.  "Lectures  on  Mediaeval  and  Modern  His- 
tory."    Oxford,  1886. 

"Sumner,  Charles,  Memoirs  and  Letters  of."  15  vols. 
Boston,  1870-1883. 

Turner,  Frederick  Jackson.  "The  Significance  of  the  Fron- 
tier in  American  History."  In  "  Proceedings  of  the  Wiscon- 
sin State  Historical  Society,"  1894. 

United  States,  Revised  Statutes  of.    Second  edition.    Wash- 
ington, 1878. 
United  States,  Reports  of  Supreme  Court  of.    Washington. 

"Virginia,  Colonial  Records  of."  ("Virginia  Senate  Docu- 
ment.")   Richmond,  1874. 

"Virginia  Historical  Collection."  Edited  by  R.  A.  Brock. 
Richmond,  1882-1889. 

Virginia  House  of  Delegates,  Journal  of.  (Revolutionary 
Period.)    Richmond,  1828. 

Washington,  H.  A.     (See  Jefferson,  Thomas.) 

Washington  Post,  The.    Washington. 

West,  Henry  Litchfield.     "The  Autocrat  of  Congress."    In 

Forum,  May,  1897. 
Wilson,  Thomas   Woodrow.     "Congressional    Government." 

Boston,  1885. 
"Wisconsin,  Proceedings  of  the  State  Historical  Society 

of."    Madison,  1891-1897.    (See  Turner,  F.  J.) 


INDEX. 


Action  vs.  deliberation,  90, 108, 
109. 

Adams,  John,  issues  report  of 
a  colonial  committee,  17 ; 
on  committee  honors  in  the 
Continental  Congress,  26; 
as  President,  his  relations 
with  Congress,  215-218, 227. 

Adams,  John  Quincy,  on  pri- 
vate legislation,  71,  75;  op- 
poses limitation  of  debate, 
110 ;  as  chairman,  140,  142 ; 
his  rules  for  appropriation 
bills,  174,  178,  185;  on  Ex- 
ecutive influence,  222,  226 ; 
the  committees  organized 
against  his  Administration, 
225 ;  on  Webster's  conduct, 
230 ;  on  appointment  of  com- 
mittees, 278 ;  on  business  of 
the  Senate,  317. 

Adams,  Samuel,  originates 
committees  of  correspon- 
dence, 17,  18. 

Allen,  William,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  281. 

Allison,  William  B.,  on  confer- 
ence procedure,  250. 

Amendment  of  bills,  30,  118, 
218 ;  limitations  of,  105,  316, 
319;  pro  forma,  115. 


Ames,  Fisher,  as  committee- 
man, 155. 

Anthony,  Henry  B.,  on  use  of 
joint  committees,  245;  on 
appointment  of  commit- 
tee*, 287;  on  rules  of  the 
Senate,  299 ;  originates  Sen- 
ate Committee  on  Rules, 
318. 

"Anthony  Rule,  The,"  319, 
320. 

Appropriation  bills  for  private 
claims,  79;  procedure  upon, 
94,  99,  100,  105,  106;  distri- 
bution of,  144, 185,  186,  253, 
304,  322,  345;  preparation 
of,  136, 183, 237, 238 ;  failure 
of,  139;  privileges  of,  174, 
180,  188,  189;  chronological 
statement  of,  1896-1897, 386, 
387 ;  differentiation  of,  175, 
176, 178,  382 ;  origins  and  ti- 
tles of  ,176 ;  delay  of  ,225 ;  the 
first,  1789, 381 ;  amendment 
of,  238,  251,  322,  377-379; 
conferences  upon,  247,  248 
(see,  also,  Riders). 

Appropriations,  Committee  on, 
(House),  proposition  to  reu- 
nite with  Ways  and  Means, 
126;  creation  of,  134;  sub- 


427 


428 


INDEX. 


committees  of,  136;  chair- 
manship of,  165 ;  power  of, 
180-184;  privileges  of,  189; 
procedure  of,  238. 

Appropriations,  Committee  on 
(Senate),  jurisdiction  of, 
composition  of,  322,  323. 

Appropriations,  report  of  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  up- 
on, 237;  their  amount  in 
1897,  238,  386,  387. 

Arthur,  Chester  A.,  exercises 
casting-vote  in  Senate,  288. 

Atlanta,  Georgia,  municipal 
committees  of,  371,  372. 

Audit  and  control,  Committee 
of  (Senate),  322. 

Ballot,  for  choice  of  commit- 
tees, 127,  128,  272-280,  289, 
292,  334. 

Barbour,  James,  proposes  to 
limit  House  membership, 
143;  his  rule  for  choice  of 
Senate  committees,  279. 

Bayly,  Thomas  H.,  secures 
right  to  report  at  any  time, 
174. 

Beckley,  John,  first  Clerk  of 
House,  13. 

Bell,.  John,  as  chairman,  140; 
contestant  for  Speakership, 
224;  on  Executive  influ- 
ence, 226. 

Benton,  Thomas  H.,  on  use  of 
joint  committees,  244;  op- 
poses closure  in  Senate,  303, 
345. 

Bills,  preparation  of,  19, 29, 221- 
224, 367 ;  titles  of,  30 ;  nature 
of,  73 ;  upon  the  calendars, 
101,  302;  reference  of,  75, 


119-121 ;  passage  of,  5, 117 ; 
modern,  origin  of,  119;  in- 
troduction of,  combination 
of,  120;  number  of,  137, 143, 
313,  314;  equality  among, 
172,  186,  367  (see,  also,  Ap- 
propriation Bills). 

Blackburn,  J.  C.  S.,  on  State 
representation,  36;  as  com- 
mitteeman, 38. 

Blaine,  James  G.,  refuses  to 
appoint  the  committees, 
138. 

Bland,  Richard  P.,  as  chair- 
man, 140. 

Book  of  Estimates,  237,  373, 385. 

Breckinridge,  John  C,  fills 
committee  vacancies,  331. 

Breeze,  Sidney,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  281. 

Bribery,  56,  59,  229. 

Bright,  Jesse  D.,  moves  adop- 
tion of  committee  list,  287. 

British  procedure,  influence  of, 
28-30,  31,  89,  260. 

Bryce,  James,  on  study  of 
American  institutions,  122. 

Buchanan,  James,  his  Admin- 
istration's influence  upon 
Congress,  225 ;  his  conduct 
investigated,  229,  232. 

Burr,  Aaron,  opposes  previous 
question  in  Senate,  303. 

Business,  legislative,  effects  of 
its  increase,  13,  31-33,  121, 
144,  277,  366,  368 ;  order  of, 
113,  137,  172,  319-321. 

Cabinet  and  other  officers  be- 
fore the  committees,  70,228, 
235, 236, 238 ;  in  Senate,  212 ; 
bills  originated  by,  221-224; 


INDEX. 


429 


their  reports  to  Congress, 
236,  237. 

Calendars,  99, 190, 197 ;  creation 
of,  189. 

Calhoun,  John  C,  conduct  in- 
vestigated, 228;  as  Presi- 
dent of  Senate,  329, 330, 333. 

Call,  Wilkinson,  on  committee 
places,  269. 

Calls  for  information,  210. 

Cambreleng,  Churchill  C,  on 
Executive  influence,  223. 

Cannon,  Joseph  G.,  on  Execu- 
tive influence,  224 ;  on  ap- 
propriations, 238;  on  con- 
ference procedure,  252. 

Carlisle,  John  G.,  ruling  on  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Rules,  198. 

Carpenter,  Matt.  H.,  on  pun- 
ishment of  witnesses,  71. 

Carter,  Thomas  H.,  as  caucus 
spokesman,  339. 

Cass,  Lewis,  secures  instruction 
of  committees,  282. 

Caucuses,  in  the  Senate,  chair- 
men of,  265;  headquarters 
of,  294,  339,  340;  appoint- 
ment of  the  committees  by, 
281-291,  338 ;  power  of,  307. 

Chairmanships,  succession  to, 
131, 325 ;  assignment  of,  270, 
271,  292,  293;  right  of  ma- 
jority to,  274,  276,  277 ;  ac- 
corded to  plurality,  289. 

Chairmen,  caucus,  appointment 
of  committees  by,  340,  341 ; 
revolts  against,  340. 

Chairmen,  committee,  methods 
of  appointing,  130, 131,  165 ; 
evolving  functions  of,  155; 
from  the  minority,  139, 140 ; 
in  earlier  Congresses,  posi- 


tion of,  156 ;  in  Senate,  326 ; 
interpellation  of,  119;  on 
the  House  floor,  161 ;  power 
of,  157,  160,  165 ;  qualifica- 
tions of,  rivalry  among,  158 ; 
sectionalism  of,  48,  51,  52 ; 
shifting  and  promotion  of, 
159;  special  seats  for,  367; 
typical,  160-162. 

Chairmen  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  165-167. 

Chambers,  Ezekiel  F.,  rule  for 
choice  of  Senate  commit- 
tees, 274,  278. 

Chandler,  William  E.,  on  con- 
ference procedure,  250;  on 
Senatorial  courtesy,  258.  • 

Chase,  Salmon  P.,  Free  soil 
Senator,  284,  285. 

Chilton,  Horace,  on  sphere  of 
Senate  committees,  299. 

Cities,  their  representation  up- 
on the  committees,  49,  52, 
53. 

Civil  service  reform,  origins  of, 
233,  235. 

Civil  War,  its  effects  upon  Con- 
gress, 38,  42,  52,  99, 174,  242, 
313,  318. 

Class  legislation,  145. 

Clay,  Henry,  as  chairman,  45 ; 
uses  joint  committee  idea, 
242;  threatens  closure  for 
Senate,  303 ;  on  Presidency 
pro  tempore,  335;  on  Con- 
gressional speeches,  345. 

Cleaves,  T.  P.,  on  appropria- 
tion bills,  175,  176. 

Clerk  of  the  House,  reference 
of  bills  by,  121. 

Cleveland,  Grover,  confers  with 
a  House   committee,  227; 


430 


INDEX. 


vetoes  an  appropriation  bill, 
252. 

Colfax,  Schuyler,  fills  com- 
mittee vacancies  in  Senate, 
331. 

Commerce,  committee  on  (Sen- 
ate), 322. 

Commitment,  29. 

Committee,  etymology  of  the 
word,  4-6. 

Committee  hearings  described, 
61-64,  342 ;  influence  of,  236, 
238,  375. 

Committeeman,  the  insignifi- 
cant, 152-154,  234. 

Committee  of  the  Whole  House 
•  for  private  legislation,  99. 

Committee  of  the  Whole  on  the 
State  of  the  Union,  26,  27, 
110, 163,  221,  302;  origin  of, 
7-9 ;  jurisdiction  of,  19,  29, 
93-101, 108;  chairman  of,  8, 
29,  165-167;  procedure  in, 
29,  74,  93,  180;  nature  of, 
92,  108 ;  origin  of  its  name, 
its  transformation,  93;  mer- 
its and  defects  of,  96;  de- 
clining use  of,  96,  97,  106, 
107, 112 ;  debate  in,  101, 102, 
105;  quorum  of,  101,  203; 
consideration  as  if  in,  112 
114 ;  on  the  President's  Mes- 
sage, 215-221 ;  as  an  investi- 
gating committee,  227,  228. 

Committee  on  Appropriations, 
etc.  (see  Appropriations, 
Committee  on,  etc.). 

Committee  on  Committees 
(Senate),  340-342. 

Committees,  caucus  (Senate), 
340-342. 

Committees,  ceremonial,  45. 


Committees,  conference,  re- 
ports of,  60,  247-249;  privi- 
leges of,  174;  business  of, 
238 ;  rules  of,  240 ;  jurisdic- 
tion of,  245;  vote  in,  245; 
sizes  of,  245;  composition 
of,  245 ;  nature  of,  246-248, 
254;  number  of,  246,  248; 
power  of,  246;  time  occu- 
pied in,  248;  victory  in, 
251,  252. 

Committees,  corresponding,  in 
Senate  and  House,  240,  252- 
254. 

Committees  for  private  legisla- 
tion, 75. 

Committees,  grand,  8,  9, 11,  27, 
44,  217,  242. 

Committees  in  the  Congresses 
of  the  Confederation,  27, 28. 

Committees,  in  general,  ac- 
countable to  the  majority 
party,  115,  191 ;  appoint- 
ment of,  23,  27,  272-280; 
business  of,  16,  17,  20-22, 
32;  classification  of,  227; 
composition  of,  14,  27;  de- 
velopment of,  7,  14,  16,  33 ; 
distinction  between  select 
and  standing,  147-149;  du- 
ration of,  27;  earliest,  in 
House  of  Commons,  7 ;  his- 
tory mirrored  by,  40-44; 
effect  of  increase  of,  209; 
increasing  social  impor- 
tance of,  3,  64 ;  influence  of 
public  opinion  upon,  264- 
2G6;  instructing  vs.  advis- 
ing, 119,  120;  instruction 
of,  18;  membership  of,  28; 
necessity  for,  6 ;  party  rep- 
resentation upon,  272-275; 


INDEX. 


431 


place  of  meeting,  ancient 
House  of  Commons,  4 ;  pow- 
er of,  26,  27,  33,  39,42,43; 
privileges  of,  232,  233;  quo- 
rum of,  30;  reference  of 
bills  to,  95;  removals  and 
resignations  from,  141, 142 ; 
reports  of,  17, 18, 30,  43,  58- 
60,  75,  76,  109, 167, 172, 240; 
representative  nature  of, 
4-6,  19,  30,  39,  40,  49,  50 
(see,also,  State  Representa- 
tion) ;  secrecy  of,  28,  56-61, 
145,  146;  sessions  of,  84; 
sizes  of,  16,  18,  25,  27,  33, 

242,  267;  traveling  of,  18, 
242;  vote  in,  9,  30;  wit- 
nesses before,  29,  79-84. 

Committees,  investigating,  18, 
29,  79-82,  242,  243;  the  first 
in  the  House,  228;  nature 
of,  composition  of,  grounds 
for,  228-235. 

Committees,  joint,  7,  18;  pro- 
cedure of,  29,  240;  business 
of,  240-243 ;  sizes  and  mem- 
bership of,  243;  rarity  of, 

243,  245 ;  power  of,  244 ;  in 
Massachusetts  legislature, 
366,  367,  369. 

Committees  of  correspondence, 
17-19. 

Committees,  routine,  199,  241. 

Committees,  select,  17-19,  26, 
27,  216;  sphere  of,  95-97; 
nature  of,  27,  40,  133,  134, 
147-149,  227 ;  declining  use 
of,  124,  220. 

Committees,  standing,  abolish- 
ment of,  126, 170, 279 ;  apart- 
ments of,  62, 66,  67, 169, 254, 
293,  294;    appointment  of, 


methods,  23,  127-130,  139, 
157,  273,  280-292,  300,  324, 
329-336;  bills  shelved  by, 
148;  business  of,  22,  63, 
170;  call  of,  167-169,  174; 
classification  of,  359-361 ; 
clerks  of,  19,  25,  64-66,  157, 
170,  171,  293;  combination 
of,  197,  202 ;  composition  of, 
224-227 ;  control  of,  70 ;  de- 
velopment of,  19,  64-70 ;  di- 
vision and  subdivision  of, 
43,  126,  134,  136,  349-361; 
duration  of,  7,  10,  25,  137, 
138,  323-325;  effect  upon 
Congress  of  their  increase, 
144 ;  effect  of  their  size,  146 ; 
enemies  of,  on  the  floor,118 ; 
equality  of,  15,  20-22,  31, 
151,  152,  167-172,  186,  202, 
367;  expenses  of,  G6,  296; 
first,  in  the  Senate,  267; 
history  mirrored  by,  84, 
207,  208;  in  State  legisla- 
tures and  municipal  coun- 
cils, 365-372 ;  jurisdiction 
of,  134,  135,  145,  194-200, 
224 ;  leadership  among,  171- 
207 ;  majority  and  minority 
representation  upon,  53,268, 
284-293;  making  up  the 
lists  of,  131 ;  meetings  of, 
170,  171;  membership  of, 
29,  42,  44-54;  merits  and 
defects  of,  142-147,  185; 
names  of,  19,  25,  87,  254, 
295,  349-358,  369-372;  na- 
ture of,  87,  88,  147-149,  209, 
236;  number  of,  293,  367, 
368 ;  order  of  members  up- 
on, 131, 282, 325, 326 ;  origins 
of,  25,  40-42,  132-134,   147, 


432 


INDEX. 


193,  219,  293,  295,  315,  321, 
349-358 ;  personnel  of,  273 ; 
power  of,  73,  74,  79-84,  100, 
109,  117,  118,  309-311;  pro- 
cedure of,  61-64;  quorum 
of,  19,  21 ;  range  of  sizes  of, 
125,  311;  reference  of  bills 
to,  74,  121,  308;  refusal  of 
Speakers  to  appoint,  138; 
their  relations  to  the  U.  S. 
Constitution,  39, 47,  87, 132, 
207 ;  removals  and  resigna- 
tions from,  169,  324;  re- 
ports of,  170;  representa- 
tive nature  of,  146,  149; 
rivalry  among,  40,  42,  116, 
221, 322 ;  their  responsibility 
to  the  majority,  107;  sec- 
tionalism allayed  by,  146; 
sessions  of,  30,  60, 199 ;  sizes 
of,  20,  25,  29,  47,  125,  127, 
201,  202,  306,  311,  349-358, 
369-372 ;  spoils  fostered  by, 
170,  171,  368;  stability  of 
their  membership,  139-142; 
traveling  of,  82 ;  unsuccess- 
ful efforts  to  create,  126 ;  va- 
cancies upon,  269,  289. 

Committee  system,  division 
and  subdivision  in,  131 ;  de- 
velopment of,  Senate,  321. 

Conferees,  character  of,  250. 

Conference  committees  (see 
Committees,  conference). 

Conkling,  Roscoe,  upon  rela- 
tions between  Senate  and 
House,  210. 

Constitution,  U.  S.,  relations  of 
the  committees  to,  39,  47, 
87,  132,  207;  its  influence 
upon  Congressional  meth- 
ods, 72,  211,  212. 


Continental  and  Confederation 
Congresses,  procedure  of, 
12,  26,  32,  33. 

Cooperation  between  Senate 
and  House,  239. 

Court  of  Claims,  creation  of, 
78. 

Covode  committee,  229,  232. 

Cox,  Samuel  S.,  as  chairman, 
159;  upon  dissection  of  the 
Message,  221. 

Crisp,  Charles  F.,  rules  upon 
jurisdiction  of  the  Rules, 
197, 199. 

Cullom,  Shelby  M.,  on  confer- 
ence procedure,  239. 

Dallas,  George  M.,  appoints 
Senate  committees,281, 282, 
330 ;  refuses  to  vacate  chair, 
330. 

Davis,  David,  in  Senate,  his  in- 
dependence, 288 ;  his  ruling 
as  to  debate,  320. 

Days  for  certain  kinds  of  legis- 
lation, setting  apart  of,  75, 
76,  98,  99,  113,  168,  188,  189, 
296. 

Dayton,  Jonathan,  Speaker, 
ruling  of,  222. 

Debate  in  early  times,  26,  30; 
in  House,  70,  158 ;  duration 
of,  158;  limitations  of,  316, 
319,  346  (see,  also,  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  Previous 
Question,  General  Debate). 

Deliberation  vs.  action,  90,  108, 
109. 

Dilatory  tactics  (see  Filibuster- 
ing). 

Dissection  of  the  President's 
Message,  25,  200,  215-221. 


INDEX. 


433 


District  of  Columbia,  Commit- 
tee on  the,  sub-committees 
of,  136. 

Douglas,  Stephen  A.,  as  chair- 
man, 43;  loses  chairman- 
ship, 225,  307;  advocates 
closure  for  Senate,  303. 

Earle,  James  H.,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  269. 

Eaton,  John  H.,  his  rule  for 
appointing  committees,  279. 

"  Edmunds  Rule,  The,"  320. 

Edmunds,  George  F.,  on  Senate 
methods,  318. 

Education  and  Labor,  Commit- 
tee on  (House), origin  of,  41. 

Eppes,  John  W.,  originates  a 
committee,  234. 

Equality,  15;  kinds  of,  15,  16, 
239. 

Equality  of  bills,  172,  367;  of 
committees  (see  Commit- 
tees, Equality  of) ;  of  legis- 
lators, 14,  31, 49,  50,  54,  111, 
150-154,  207,  269-272,  367. 

Estimates,  Book  of,  237, 373,385. 

Everett,  Edward,  deprived  of 
chairmanship,  131,  236. 

Expenditures,  standing  com- 
mittees on,  creation  and  du- 
ties of,  233,  234. 

Ferry,  Thomas  W.,  as  commit- 
teeman, 336. 

Filibustering,  61,  103,  107,  115, 
168,188,193,195, 201, 202, 288. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  defends  Pres- 
idency of  Senate,  330. 

Finance,  Committee  on  (Sen- 
ate), 322. 

Finances,  53,  160,  237,  238,  373. 


Findley,  William,  as  chairman, 
140. 

Five-minute  rule  for  debate, 
105,  115,  319. 

Fletcher,  Richard,  loses  his 
committee  membership, 
142;  on  Executive  influ- 
ence, 222. 

Foreign  Affairs,  Committee  on 
(House),  origin  of,  40,  41; 
business  of  ,43 ;  its  chairman 
attends  a  Cabinet  meeting, 
226 ;  its  relations  with  Ex- 
ecutive, 225-227 ;  nature  of, 
254. 

Franklin,  Benjamin,  publishes 
journals  of  Pennsylvania 
Assembly,  14. 

French  legislative  committees 
compared  with  American, 
91,  92. 

Frye,  "William  P.,  as  commit- 
teeman, 38 ;  on  useless  Sen- 
ate committees,  294;  as 
President  pro  tempore,  336. 

Gaillard,  John,  appoints  Sen- 
ate committees,  333. 

Gallatin,  Albert,  originates  the 
Ways  and  Means,  222. 

Garfield,  James  A.,  as  commit- 
teeman, 38,  139;  originates 
Committee  on  Education, 
41;  as  chairman,  43,  159; 
on  use  of  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  99;  on  Congres- 
sional business,  150, 152 ;  on 
riders,  184. 

General  debate,  103, 104 ;  abuses 
of,  109, 110,  216-218 ;  in  out- 
set of  a  Congress,  110-112; 
references  to  dates  of,  111 ; 


434 


INDEX. 


periods  of,  112;  right  to 
speak  twice  in,  114;  de- 
fined, 115,377. 

General  parliamentary  law,  110, 
111. 

Gerry,  Elbridge,  on  House 
methods,  89. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  on  com- 
mittee positions,  169. 

Grand  committees,  27,  44,  217, 
242. 

Grant,  Ulysses  S.,  on  Randall's 
leadership,  161 ;  influence 
of  his  administration  upon 
Congress,  226. 

Greeley,  Horace,  on  publicity, 
36;  on  leadership  among 
States,  48;  on  House  chair- 
men, 157. 

Grow,  Galusha  A.,  Speaker, 
charged  with  partiality,  48. 

Guizot,  Francois  P.  G.,  on  pub- 
licity, 36,  56. 

Hale,  John  P.,  on  publicity, 
266;  objects  to  adoption  of 
a  committee  list,  284,  285 ; 
on  appointment  of  commit- 
tees, 287 ;  secures  rule  for 
special  orders,  317. 

Harris,  Isham  G.,  secures  lim- 
itation of  debate,  316 ;  cho- 
sen President  pro  tempore, 
337. 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  his  con- 
duct investigated,  227;  ori- 
ginates written  reports  of 
Cabinet  officers,  234. 

Hamlin,  Hannibal,  on  commit- 
tee ratios,  286. 

Hanna,  Marcus  A.,  on  commit- 
tee assignments,  269. 


Harper,  Robert  Goodloe,  se- 
cures reduction  in  size  of 
Ways  and  Means,  47 ;  offers 
amendments  to  rules,  102. 

Hart,  Albert  Bushnell,  on  con- 
ference procedure,  246. 

Hatch,  William  H.,  as  chair- 
man, 140. 

Hearings  (see  Committee  Hear- 
ings). 

Henderson,  David  B.,  offers  an 
amendment  to  the  rules,  198. 

Hewitt,  Abram  S.,  on  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  Rules,  197. 

Hill,  David  B.,  on  Senate  meth- 
ods, 308. 

Hoar,  George  F.,  on  publicity, 
57;  on  private  legislation, 
71,  297;  on  seniority,  156; 
on  use  of  conferences,  247. 

Hobart,  Garrett  A.,  on  Senate 
methods,  331. 

Hoist,  Hermann  E.  von,  on  the 
Senate,  306. 

"Holman  Amendment,  The," 
179,  184. 

Holman,  William  S.,  as  chair- 
man, 159. 

Hour  Rule,  the,  adoption  of,  107. 

House  and  Senate  compared, 
12,  259,  260,  306. 

House  of  Commons,  the,  secrecy 
in,  8,  58 ;  private  legislation 
in,  68,  73;  ancient  proce- 
dure of,  7-9,  24,  137. 

House  of  Representatives,  the, 
in  1789,  13,  14;  new  mem- 
bership in,  88 ;  organization 
of,  110 ;  increase  of  its  mem- 
bership and  business,  121 ;  a 
session  described,  162 ;  sum- 
mary as  to,  207-209. 


INDEX. 


435 


Illinois,    legislative    methods 

in,  367,  368. 
Individual,  the,  his  power  in 

House,  120;  in  Senate,  306, 

311. 
Individualism,  15,  261,  263. 
Ingalls,    John    J.,   on    Senate 

methods,  300. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  on  calls  for 
information,  210;  the  com- 
mittees organized  for,  225 ; 
his  conduct  investigated, 
229,  231. 

Jackson,  John  G.,  originates 
the  Judiciary,  213. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  on  earliest 
legislative  procedure  of 
Congress,  12;  influence  of 
his  Administration  upon 
committee  appointments, 
142 ;  institutes  the  Message, 
218;  his  conduct  investi- 
gated, 228;  exercises  cast- 
ing vote  in  Senate,  251; 
opposes  closure  for  Senate, 
303;  on  Senate  methods, 
308. 

Jefferson's  Manual,  28-30,  89, 
368,  418. 

Johnson,  Andrew,  advocates 
committee  on  Smithsonian 
Institute,  126. 

Johnson,  Richard  M.,  appoints 
Senate  committees,  330. 

Johnston,  Alexander,  on  pri- 
vate legislation,  73. 

Judiciary,  Committeo  on 
(House),  chairmanship  of, 
165 ;  description  of,  200, 213, 
214,  255;  rule  defining  its 
jurisdiction,  396. 


Keifer,  J.  "Warren,  rules  upon 
jurisdiction  of  the  Rules, 
195. 

Kent,  Joseph,  as  chairman,  140. 

King,  William  R.,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  280. 

Leaders,  development  of,  155- 
160;  classified,  155;  inter- 
pellation of,  249  (see,  also, 
Chairman,  Speaker,  Presi- 
dent). 

Leadership,  112,  114,  162-165, 
204-207,  265,  326-343. 

Lee,  Richard  Bland,  secures 
appointment  of  committees 
by  Speaker,  127. 

Legislation,  private  (see  Pri- 
vate Legislation). 

Legislation  in  1789,  72;  hasty, 
86,  109;  favored,  113,  189, 
190;  class,  145;  unity  and 
harmony  of,  145,  206,  253. 

Legislative  methods,  develop- 
ment of,  14,  89-92,  123,  259, 
300,  311,  365-368. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  election  of, 
232. 

Livingston,  Edward,  on  testi- 
mony, 81. 

Lobbying,  59,  63,  64,  77. 

Locke,  John,  failure  of  his 
Grand  Model,  16. 

Lodge,  Henry  Cabot,  on  major- 
ity responsibility,  86;  on 
the  Senate's  rules,  300. 

Lot,  appointment  of  commit- 
tees by,  130. 

Mace,  use  of,  29,  166,  391. 
Maclay,   William,    on    Senate 
methods,  299,  308;  on  rela- 


436' 


INDEX. 


tiQnsof  Executive  and  Con- 
gress, 214;  his  rule  for* 
chairmanships,  326t  • 

Macon,  Nathaniel,  deposes 
Randolph  from  chairman- 
ship, 131. 

Madison,  James,  on  sphere  of 
select  committees,  96;  as 
committeeman,  155,  '217, 
218;  on  Executive  influ- 
ence, 221. 

Mahone,  William,  independent 
Senator,  288. 

Manderson,  Charles  F.,  on  Pres- 
idency pro  tempore,  337. 

Mangum,  Willie  P.,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,280,283. 

Massachusetts,  legislative 
methods  in,  240,  366,  367. 

McKee,  Thomas  H.,  on  Senate 
methods,  321. 

Members,  House,  old  and  new 
contrasted,  48,  112. 

Membership,  effect  of  increase 
of,  13,  16,  31-33,  121,  125, 
143,  277,  366,  368. 

Messages,  Presidential,  influ- 
ence of,  25,  200,  215-221. 

Mexican  War,  influence  of,  280. 

Military  men  in  Congress,  163, 
164. 

Mills,  Roger  Q.,  on  private  le- 
gislation, 75. 

Minneapolis,  municipal  com- 
mittees of,  371,  372. 

Minority,  leadership  of,  155, 
163,  166,  273,  340;  power  of, 
191,  209,  309-311. 

Mitchell,  John  H.,  on  election 
of  Senators,  258. 

Monroe,  James,  his  accounts 
investigated,  148,  228. 


Morgan,  John  T.,  on  committee 
clerks,  294. 

Morning  Hour,  the,  institution 
and  development  of,  76, 
167,  191,  321. 

Morrill,  Justin  S.,  on  commit- 
tee spoils,  293. 

Morrison,  William  R.,  as  chair- 
man, 159;  secures  control 
of  special  orders  for  the 
Rules,  196-198. 

Morton,  Levi  P.,  administers 
oath  to  President  pro  tem- 
pore, 337. 

New  England,  original  legis- 
lative methods  in,  14-19; 
power  of  her  Senators,  270. 

Newton,  Thomas,  as  chairman, 
140. 

Nominations,  committees  for 
consideration  of,  314. 

"One-man  power,"  129,  153. 

Onslow,  Arthur,  Speaker  of  the 
House  of  Commons,  12; 
Jefferson's  citation  of,  304. 

Organization  of  the  House,  110. 

Originality  of  American  pro- 
cedure, 12-32,  208,  314,  365, 
366. 

Orr,  James  L.,  first  Speaker  on 
the  Rules,  192;  charged 
with  partiality,  231. 

Orth,  Godlove  S.,  plan  for  ap- 
pointment of  committees, 
129. 

Parliamentary  tactics  in  Sen- 
ate, 308. 

Parton,  James,  on  Jefferson's 
Manual,  30. 


INDEX. 


v  437 


Party  spirit,  influence  of,  211, 
212. 

Pennsylvania  Assembly,  colo- 
nial, procedure  of,  20-25, 
137,  362-364. 

Penn,  William,  failure  of  his 
Frame  of  Government,  16 ; 
his  ideas  of  legislative  pro- 
cedure, 20-22. 

Persons  and  papers,  power  to 
send  for,  79-84,  228. 

Petitions  in  Senate,  297. 

Piatt,  Orville  H.,  on  Senate 
methods,  302. 

Poindexter,  George,  on  appoint- 
ment of  committees,  334. 

Polk,  James  K.,  rules  upon  ju- 
risdiction of  the  Rules,  198 ; 
a  contestant  for  the  Speak- 
ership^  224. 

Pomeroy,  Samuel  C,  secures 
amendments  to  Senate 
rules,  318. 

Porter,  Peter  B.,  argues  for 
closure,  104. 

Post-offices  and  Post-Roads, 
Committee  on  (House),  rep- 
resents all  the  States,  44. 

"Pound  Rule,  The,"  168,  191. 

Powell,  Lazarus  W.,  protests 
against  method  of  appoint- 
ing committees,  287. 

Presidency  and  Presidency  pro 
tempore  of  Senate,  conflict 
between,  336. 

President  of  the  United  States, 
his  relations  with  Congress 
and  its  committees,  127, 
128,  142,  210,  242 ;  visits  of 
committees  to,  134 ;  dissec- 
tion of  his  Message,  25,  200, 
215-221. 


President  pro  tempore  pi  Sen- 
ate, choice  of,  332,  337 ;  ten- 
ure of,  333  ;  appointment  of 
committees  by,  333-335 ;  his 
service  on  committees,  336. 

Previous  question,  ""the,  origin 
of,  24;  House  adopts  its 
modern  form,  102-104  j  de- 
•scription  of,  103-407 ;  lead- 
ers refuse  to  order,  107 ;  de- 
bate preceding,  114 ;  agita- 
tion therefor  in  Senate,  303, 
304,  320,  345,  346. " 

Printing,  Committee  on  (Sen- 
ate), 321. 

Printing,  use  of,  17,  18,  60, 147, 
237,  249,  376,  377. 

Private  legislation,  68,  136, 148, 
171,  296-298;  days  for,  98, 
99;  evils  of,  76-78. 

Procedure,  British,  influence 
of,  7-12,  20,  22,  215. 

Procedure,  colonial,  influence 
of,  10725,  139. 

Publicity,  36,  56;  for  commit- 
tee sessions,  56-70,  297 ;  in- 
crease of,  219. 

Public  Lands,  Committee  on 
(House),  origin  of,  40. 

Public  opinion,  its  influence 
upon  Congress,  54-70,  111, 
206,  209,  231,  232,  264-266, 
295,346. 

Public  property,  appropriations 
of,  99,  100. 

Quincy,  Josiah,  champions  se- 
lect committees,  148. 

Randall,  Samuel  J.,  as  chair- 
man, 38,  160-162,  180;  his 
service  on  the  Rules,  139; 


438 


INDEX. 


rules  upon  jurisdiction  of 
the  Rules,  194. 

Randolph,  John,  forces  House 
to  adopt  closure,  102,  103; 
advocates  choice  of  com- 
mittees hy  hallot,  128;  loses 
his  chairmanship,  131,  142 ; 
his  trickery  towards  Jeffer- 
son, 225;  Calhoun  refuses 
to  call  him  to  order,  329. 

Reagan,  John  H.,  on  evils  of 
general  debate,  110;  on 
equality  of  legislators,  150 ; 
as  chairman,  182. 

Recess,  right  to  sit  during  a, 

.       232. 

Recognitions,  on  the  floor,  157. 

Recommital,  49, 118,  228. 

Reed,  Thomas  B.,  on  hasty  le- 
gislation ,86  ;  on  dependence 
of  committees,  118  ;  on 
method  of  their  appoint- 
ment, 129;  his  service  on 
the  Rules,  139;  refuses  to 
appoint  the  committees, 
139;  on  equality  of  legis- 
lators, 154;  rules  on  juris- 
diction of  the  Rules,  199; 
rules  on  conference  reports, 
250;  as  President  of  the 
Senate,  331 ;  his  parliamen- 
tary manual,  368. 

Reference  of  hills,  119-121. 

Relations  between  Congress 
and  Executive,  177-179, 
181,  211. 

Report  at  any  time,  the  right 
to,  172-175,  180,  182,  183, 
190. 

Reports,  calendars  for,  189. 

Representatives,  the,  their  ac- 
quaintance  with    pending 


measures,  109 ;  their  equal- 
ity, 111;  the  old  and  the 
new  contrasted,  48, 112. 

Resolutions,  119,  120. 

Retrenchment,  179-181;  joint 
committee  on,  233. 

Revenue  and  expenditures,  145. 

Revenue  bills,  privileges  of, 
175,  176. 

Rich,  Charles,  his  proposed 
classification  of  business, 
97,  98. 

Riders,  175,  177-179,  184,  185, 
251,  252,  378. 

River  and  Harbor  Bill,  strug- 
gle over  the,  181-184. 

Robeson,  George  M.,  on  distri- 
bution of  business  among 
the  committees,  170. 

Ruggles,  Benjamin,  his  pro- 
posed order  of  business,  317. 

Rules,  parliamentary,  in  first 
Pennsylvania  Assembly, 
22-25,  362-364;  in  House, 
amendment  and  revision 
of,  37-39,  168,  192,  195,  197, 
198,  201;  the  revision  and 
codification  of  1880,  38,  39, 
168,  183,  188,  189,  193,  194; 
development  of,  37-39;  ap- 
pended to  journals,  76;  dis- 
cussion and  adoption  of, 
111 ;  in  Senate,  nature  of, 
301,  302;  codification  of, 
316  ;  joint,  development 
of,  212,  241 ;  in  general,  ob- 
ject of,  38,  304. 

Rules  of  the  Fifty-fifth  Con- 
gress, 388-419. 

Rules,  Committee  on  (House), 
membership  of,  50 ;  history 
of,    13,    133,    192-205;    the 


INDEX. 


439 


second  place  upon,  165; 
primacy  of,  188;  creation 
of,  192, 193, 354, 355 ;  reports 
of,  193 ;  jurisdiction  of,  194, 
196-199;  its  right  to  sit  at 
any  time,  199 ;  size  of,  201 ; 
nature  and  power  of,  200- 
207. 
Rules,  Committee  on  (Senate), 
nature  of,  302,  305 ;  size  of, 
318. 

Saulsbury*  Willard,  protests 
against  method  of  appoint- 
ing committees,  287. 

Sayers,  Joseph  D.,  on  appro- 
priations, 238. 

Schenck,  Robert  C,  as  chair- 
man, 159. 

Schouler,  James,  on  use  of  in- 
vestigating committees,230. 

Seats,  the  lot  for  assignment  of, 
130. 

Sectionalism,  48-53,  271,  272. 

Sedgwick,  Theodore,  as  caucus 
spokesman,  338. 

Select  committees  (see  Com- 
mittees, select). 

Selection  of  bills  from  the  cal- 
endars, 121,  180,  200,  201. 

Senate,  the,  spirit  of,  261 ;  sec- 
tional power  in,  261-264; 
size  of  (1789),  264,  265;  se- 
crecy of,  265,  266;  a  reor- 
ganization of,  described, 
290-292,  324,  325 ;  nature  of, 
299,  305,  306-308;  growth 
of,  by  decades,  312;  influ- 
ence of  House  and  Execu- 
tive upon,  315;  conclusions 
as  to,  343-348. 

Senatorial  courtesy,  299,  300. 


Senators,  the,  nativity  of,  262 ; 
election  of,  258,  266;  ages 
of,  305. 
Seniority,  48, 156,  157,  161,  270, 
271,  325,  326,  341. 

Sergeant-at-Arms,  166,  233. 

Sevier,  Ambrose  H.,  rearranges 
names  of  committeemen, 
282;  presents  committee 
lists,  283 ;  on  method  of  ap- 
pointing committees,  284. 

Seward,  William  .H.,  moves 
adoption  of  committee  list, 
287. 

Sherman,  John,  secures  privi- 
leges for  the  Ways  and 
Means,  175;  on  Executive 
influence,  210;  on  use  of 
investigating  committees, 
232;  on  committee  ratios, 
287;  as  caucus  chairman, 
337,338. 

Slavery,  debates  upon,  109. 

Slidell,  John,  proposes  com- 
mittee on  coinage  and  cur- 
rency, 126. 

Sloan,  James,  on  method  of 
appointing  committees,128. 

Southern  Senators,  power  of, 
271. 

Southard,  Samuel  R.,  appoints 
Senate  committees,  280. 

Speaker,  the,  choice  of,  8,  54, 
224,  226;  his  relations  to 
Committee  of  the  Whole, 
8, 165-167 ;  his  ancient  sub- 
servience, 8,  11;  appoint- 
ment of  the  committees  by, 
29,  48,  50,  127-130,  131,  139, 
153,  157,  234,  273;  power  of, 
51,55,76,  129;  clerk  to,  55; 
reference  of  bills  by,  121; 


440 


INDEX. 


popular  election  of,  131; 
appointment  of  chairmen 
by,  131;  his  name  in  U.  S. 
Constitution,  132 ;  recogni- 
tions by,  157  ;  his  represen- 
tative on  the  floor,  165 ;  his 
limitations,  165;  his  first 
membership  upon  the 
Rules,  192;  as  spokesman 
to  the  President,  216 ;  sub- 
poenas issued  by,  233. 

Speaker  pro  tempore,  a,  ap- 
points a  committee,  129. 

Special  orders,  76,  172, 186-191, 
196-199,  302, 317 ;  nature  of, 
112-114, 203 ;  variety  of,  113 ; 
examples  of,  196,  382-384. 

Speight,  Jesse,  presents  com- 
mittee list,  283. 

Spoils  system,  170, 171, 178, 179, 
368. 

Springer,  William  M.,  as  chair- 
man, 160 ;  on  committee  re- 
ports, 170. 

Standing  committees  (see  Com- 
mittees, Standing). 

Star  Route  disclosures,  232. 

State  representation  upon  the 
committees,  26,  27,  31,  44- 
52,  96,  130,  225, 267-271, 349- 
358. 

States,  leadership  among,  48; 
call  of,  191. 

Steering  Committee  (Senate), 
appointment  of,  340;  size 
of,  341 ;  functions  of,  342. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  as 
-committeeman,  38. 

Stevens,  Thaddeus,  as  chair- 
man, 141,  160-162. 

Stevenson,  Adlai  E.,  on  Senate 
methods,  331. 


Sub-committees,  81, 135,  136. 

Sumner,  Charles,  appointed 
committeeman  by  Demo- 
crats, 285;  deposed  from 
his  chairmanship,  226, 307. 

Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  decision  in  Kilbourn 
vs.  Thompson,  84. 

Suspension  of  the  rules,  legis- 
lation by,  105 ;  debate  pre- 
ceding, 115;  majority  re- 
quired for,  182,  187, 188. 

Tariff  bills,  preparation  of,  139. 

Taylor,  John  W.,  on  instruc- 
tions to  committees,  119, 
120 ;  trenches  upon  ancient 
precedents,  220. 

Teller,  Henry  M.,  on  confer- 
ence procedure,  250. 

Territorial  delegates,  as  com- 
mitteemen, 46. 

Time,  allotment  of,  in  debate, 
62,  76, 114, 158, 164,  367,  377. 

Travel,  the  right  of  committees 
to,  82,  232. 

Treaties,  appropriations  for,178. 

Trumbull,  Lyman,  on  commit- 
tee ratios,  286;  on  Senate 
methods,  302. 

Tucker,  George,  originates  the 
committees  on  expendi- 
tures, 234. 

Turpie,  David,  on  minority 
rights,  258. 

Unanimous  consent,  legisla- 
tion by,  75,  190,  191,  289, 
302,  335. 

Unfinished  business,  in  Penn- 
sylvania Colonial  Assem- 
bly, 25 ;  in  House,  138. 


INDEX. 


441 


Van  Buren,  Martin,  as  Presi- 
dent of  the  Senate,  334. 

Vest,  George  G.,  on  conference 
procedure,  250 ;  on  increase 
of  Senate's  committees,293, 
294. 

Vice-President  of  the  United 
States,  the,  as  President  of 
the  Senate,  327-332. 

Virginia  House  of  Burgesses, 
the,  colonial  procedure  of, 
10,  11, 19,  20, 139;  institutes 
committees  of  correspond- 
ence, 19. 

Vote,  the,  in  legislation,  signifi- 
cance of,  46, 117, 152,  207. 

Voting,  methods  of,  117. 

War  of  1812,  influence  of,  102. 

Washburne,  Elihu'B.,  as  chair- 
man, 140. 

Washington, George,  President, 
his  relations  with  Congress, 
215-217. 

Ways  and  Means,  Committee 
on  (House),  power  of,  42; 
size  of,  47;  proposition  to 
unite  it  with  the  Appro- 
priations, 126 ;  sub-commit- 
tees of,  13G;  privileges  of, 
174,  175,  188,  189,  200;  cre- 
ation of,  221,  222;  business 
of,  221-224. 

Webster,  Daniel,  on  sphere  of 
select  committees,  97;  his 


conduct  investigated,  228; 
criticises  an  investigating 
committee,  230;  on  use  of 
joint  committees,  244. 

Western  members,  their  status 
in  the  House,  49,  50, 149. 

White,  Hugh  Lawson,  as  Presi- 
dent pro  tempore  of  the 
Senate,  333,  334. 

Williams,  Lewis,  as  chairman, 
140. 

Wilson,  Woodrow,  on  Senate 
rules,  305. 

Winslow,  Warren,  *  secures 
membership  for  the  Speak- 
er upon  the  Rules,  193. 

Winthrop,  Robert  C,  reap- 
pointment of  House  com- 
*  mittees  by,  138. 

Wise,  Henry  A.,  opposes  limi- 
tation of  debate,  110;  as 
chairman,  229. 

Witnesses  before  committees, 
29,  G3,  79-84;  pay  of,  82; 
imprisonment  of,  83,  84. 

Wolcott,  Oliver,  his  conduct 
investigated,  226. 

Worcester,  Massachusetts,  mu- 
nicipal committees  in,  371, 
372. 

Wyoming,  legislative  methods 
in,  368. 

Yeas  and  Nays  upon  commit- 
tee lists,  286,  292. 


LOAN  DEPT. 


on  die 
Renewed  bd 


LD  2lA-60m-lO,,65 
MP7763sl0)476B 


sasr'JSiS- 


UDiveKgtkeley 


(F7763 


CDbl314Sai 


, 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below  or 
P„„       fu  th,e  date  to  which  «newed  ' 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall 


Ml7'64-10PM 


REC'D  L.D 


APR    9 '65 -8  AM 


8  PM 


im£m$& 


tf£e 


--J2_I_a 


MW^ 


LD  21A-40m-4 
(D6471sl0)476B 


m 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley- 


YB  08425 


i 


U.C.BERKELEY  LIBRARIES 


cowme?W! 


***v 


*  w* 


